calculate_lot_size

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core risk model — losing risk_percent of balance on stop — but does not clarify that the tool is purely computational, whether it places any order, what account or market data it depends on, or what the return value looks like.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and contains no filler. It states the calculation and the sizing condition efficiently.

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 three required, undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It does not explain data dependencies, output format, or parameter conventions needed 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 0%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It mentions risk_percent and stop-loss indirectly, but does not explain symbol at all, nor clarify units for risk_percent (fraction vs percent) or the expected relationship of stop_loss_price to current price.

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 calculation: position size in lots based on risk_percent of balance and a stop loss. It clearly distinguishes this calculator from all sibling order/manipulation and read-only tools, none of which perform lot 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 explains what the calculation achieves but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites such as needing account balance or current market price. It leaves the agent to infer the workflow context.

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