calculate_risk

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the API key requirement, which is useful, but does not explicitly state whether this is a read-only calculation, how results are returned, or that no state is modified. This leaves the agent with incomplete safety and side-effect knowledge.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and follows with the auth requirement. Every word contributes value; there is 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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain what the tool returns and how it fits into a workflow. It only says 'risk metrics' without specifying what those metrics are, their format, or how the result should be interpreted. This is a notable gap for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 input schema already describes all parameters (borrow_amount, collateral_amount, interest_rate_percent, duration_days, liquidation_ltv_percent) with 100% coverage, so the description adds no parameter-specific meaning. The baseline score of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('calculate') and resource ('risk metrics') for a well-defined context ('a potential loan position'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like estimate_interest or get_loan_health, which focus on different aspects.

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 phrase 'for a potential loan position' gives implied context that this is used when evaluating a loan, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_loan_health or estimate_interest. No exclusionary or alternative-tool guidance is provided.

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