evaluate_trade_risk

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals a performance trait (NVIDIA NIM sub-millisecond GPU inference) but says nothing about side effects, required permissions, output format, or read-only/read-write behavior. This is insufficient given the absence of annotation support.

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 sentence that wastes no words and front-loads the core purpose. Mentioning the NVIDIA NIM performance detail adds relevant context without bloating the text.

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?

With no output schema and no annotation support, the description needed to explain what the tool returns and how to interpret the risk/liquidation result. It omits prerequisites, return shape, and relationship to the sibling trade-execution workflow, leaving an agent without key information to invoke the tool correctly.

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 five parameters. The description adds no extra meaning to parameter semantics and does not resolve ambiguities such as whether amount is in USD or asset units. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 ('evaluates') and a precise resource ('cryptocurrency trade risk and liquidation probability'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like parse_trade_intent and execute_hedged_trade. The purpose is immediately recognizable and not a tautology of the tool name.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus parse_trade_intent, query_yield_arbitrage, or execute_hedged_trade. It implies a pre-trade risk assessment use case but never states conditions, exclusions, or which alternative to choose.

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