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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is paid ($0.05) and the endpoint (POST /api/portfolio/risk), which adds transparency. However, it does not describe potential side effects, rate limits, or error handling. For a simple read-only tool, the disclosure is acceptable but not exhaustive.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a parenthetical with cost and endpoint. It front-loads the key output metrics and provides immediate context. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is largely complete. It lists the metrics returned, the required input, and pricing. It does not explain the metrics (e.g., HHI) or response format, but that is acceptable domain knowledge. A brief mention of the response structure would improve completeness.

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 schema covers the single parameter 'address' with 100% coverage, describing it as '0x wallet address (Base)'. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 computes portfolio concentration risk metrics (top-holding %, HHI, stablecoin %, diversification flags). The verb 'Spot dangerous concentration' implies risk assessment, and the resource is portfolio risk. It distinguishes itself from siblings like portfolio_pnl and portfolio_value by focusing on concentration.

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 usage when needing concentration risk analysis but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It mentions the cost and endpoint but no alternatives or exclusion criteria. Given the sibling list includes many financial tools, more explicit guidance would help.

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