get_portfolio_risk

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It describes a read-only analysis ('Analyses', 'Highlights') on live account data, which implies no mutation. It also discloses the specific risk areas covered and the benchmark (SPY), adding useful context beyond the tool name. However, it does not mention performance implications, authentication needs, or any limitations.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, then details the specific analyses performed. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 complexity (no parameters, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema that likely defines return fields, the description provides a clear overview of what the tool does and what it highlights. It is complete for understanding the tool's purpose and scope, though it could benefit from a brief note on how the output is presented or any constraints (e.g., only for equity portfolios).

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 schema reflects that with no properties. The description clarifies that the scope is the entire live account, reinforcing why no parameters are needed. This adds meaningful context beyond the empty schema, justifying a score above the baseline of 4.

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 a specific action ('Analyses') on a specific resource ('the live account') and specifies the exact analytical dimensions (position-level P&L, concentration, volatility/beta versus SPY). It also highlights specific output facets (over-concentration, correlated clusters), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_open_positions or get_market_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 implies usage context (when you need portfolio risk analysis) but does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. There is no reference to sibling tools or conditions like 'use this when X, otherwise use Y.'

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