calculate_position_size

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the calculation logic (position sizing from stop loss and risk percent), the default for entry price (latest close, though this is in the schema), and the additional ATR-based stop distance output. It doesn't mention side effects or whether it places orders, but it clearly presents itself as a calculator, not an order executor.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every word adds value. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 tool has an output schema and fully documented parameters. The description explains the core behavior and output context (ATR distance), which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool. It doesn't cover edge cases or alternative usage, but given the schema richness, completeness is high.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all five parameters. The description adds context about how risk_percent is used and mentions ATR-based stop, but it doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 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's purpose: to size a position based on account risk, specifying exactly what it computes (number of shares such that stop-loss risk is within risk_percent) and that it also reports ATR-based stop distance. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like draft_order or preview_order, which handle order entry rather than risk-based sizing.

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 for risk-based position sizing and mentions the key input (risk_percent) and the stop-loss price. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over order placement tools.

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