optimize_risk_parity

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explains the theoretical goal (equal risk contribution) but does not disclose practical behaviors: it doesn't state that it uses historical market data when use_market_data=true, what the output looks like (weights, risk metrics), or that it may require internet/data sources. This is a significant gap for a 10-parameter optimization tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single efficient sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose. However, the claim 'better diversification than equal-weight portfolios' is somewhat promotional and not strictly necessary, but overall it's concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 10 parameters including methods, constraints, and data options, this minimal description is insufficient. It doesn't mention there are three optimization methods, that constraints can be applied, that real market data is optional, or what output to expect. No output schema exists, so the description should have explained return values.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions, defaults, and examples for all 10 parameters. The tool description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool performs Risk Parity portfolio optimization with the goal of equal risk contribution. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like compare_risk_parity_methods or optimize_black_litterman, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies that you should use this tool when you want risk parity optimization, but it provides no explicit 'when to use vs alternatives' guidance. It doesn't mention exclusions or contrast with other optimization tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.