Get Portfolio Risk

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context by specifying exactly what is analyzed (P&L, concentration, volatility/beta) and what it highlights (over-concentration, correlated clusters), going beyond the generic safety hints without contradicting them.

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 primary action, and every phrase contributes specific information (scope, metrics, and risk flags). There is no filler or redundancy, making it highly efficient.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description conveys the purpose, the analysis targets, and the key outputs (highlights). It could be slightly improved by explicitly stating the return format (e.g., 'returns a risk report'), but given the simple nature and strong annotations, it is adequately complete.

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 tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty with 100% coverage. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4. The description naturally does not need to explain parameters, and it does not introduce any ambiguity.

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 uses a specific verb 'Analyses' with a clear resource 'the live account' and enumerates concrete aspects (position-level P&L, concentration, volatility/beta vs SPY). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_account_info (general account details) and get_open_positions (raw positions) by focusing on risk analysis.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when the user needs a risk assessment of the live portfolio, including volatility, concentration, and correlation analysis. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous given the specific risk-oriented wording.

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