chainvectorRiskIndex

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the index composition (cascade 25%, squeeze 20%, etc.), the meaning of label ranges, and how to act on the value (circuit breaker). This goes beyond the schema and provides practical behavioral context, though it does not describe the exact response structure or mention side effects (irrelevant for a read-only metric).

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 compact and front-loaded with the core definition, followed by the component breakdown, labels, and a practical usage note. Every sentence adds value 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 tool's simplicity and rich schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains what the index means, how it's computed, how to interpret values, and when to use it. It lacks an explicit return-format description (e.g., JSON keys besides the single number), but for a straightforward index metric the provided information suffices.

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% and both parameters are well-described in the schema (symbol filter, history boolean). The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning—only implicitly referencing per-asset vs. composite via 'per asset' and 'market composite'—so it stays at the baseline.

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 it provides a single 0-100 market-stress number per asset, with explicit component weights and label thresholds. This distinguishes it from sibling chainvector tools (like cascade or funding-only metrics) and states the exact scope ('per asset').

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 an explicit use case: 'Use as a circuit breaker: no new entries while the index is high/extreme.' This gives clear when-to-use guidance. It does not list alternatives or exclusion cases, but for a composite risk index the circuit-breaker framing is strong.

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