get_portfolio_risk

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden of transparency. It details the grouping logic, output structure (risk themes, tickers, narratives, scores), and input constraints, providing complete behavioral context.

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: a one-line summary, followed by detailed explanation of functionality, parameter format, and return value. Every sentence adds value, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 simple input/output (one parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers input constraints, output structure, and functional behavior, leaving no major gaps.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by explaining the 'holdings' parameter format (TICKER:WEIGHT pairs, comma-separated), constraints (max 50, weights sum ~1.0), and providing an example.

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's purpose: 'Analyze narrative risk across a portfolio of stocks.' It specifies grouping by macro themes and identifying concentrated exposure, which distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'get_narratives'.

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 clear context on input format and constraints (max 50 holdings, weights sum to ~1.0), but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or suggest alternatives.

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