trade_get_portfolio_risk

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context: it discloses the tool is read-only, lists the metrics returned, describes the output format and failure response. No contradictions.

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 well-structured with first sentence, bullet points, Args/Returns sections, and examples. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy.

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?

The description covers the purpose, metrics, read-only nature, parameter details, output schema, failure handling, and usage examples. It is fully complete given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema.

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 includes descriptions for params and response_format. The description adds value by explaining the default output format ('markdown') and the structure of the JSON response. It clarifies what the single parameter does beyond the schema.

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 it gets aggregate risk metrics for the current portfolio and lists specific metrics (concentration, beta, VaR, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like trade_get_backtest and trade_get_portfolio by focusing on risk.

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 provides example questions that trigger the tool, but does not explicitly state when to avoid it or mention alternatives. The context and sibling names help, but explicit guidance is missing.

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