calculate_prop_firm_risk

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the calculation factors spread/commission friction, checks drawdown auto-lock status, and costs $0.01 USDC on Base, but it does not describe the return format or what happens when a drawdown limit is breached.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the core calculation and key modifiers without filler. It is dense with domain jargon, but every clause contributes to the purpose.

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 seven-parameter financial calculation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and the USDC cost. However, it omits return-value details and breach behavior, leaving some gaps an agent might need to fill.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters. The description mentions drawdown and spread/commission concepts but does not map them to specific parameters or add syntax beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb and resource: it calculates exact CFD/Forex lot size and factors in ECN spread/commission friction and prop-firm drawdown auto-lock status. It is clearly distinct from the unrelated sibling tools, but it does not explicitly name or exclude any alternative.

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?

Usage is implied by the domain-specific phrasing (prop-firm risk sizing for CFD/Forex), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The agent must infer the appropriate context.

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