fahali_get_institutional_risk_score

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

Given no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral traits: output ranges, risk levels, crash component capping at 50, and the nature (observation, not advice). This provides strong transparency for the agent.

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 concise (5 sentences) and efficiently front-loaded: first sentence states the core purpose, then details output, special behavior, and context. Every sentence adds unique value.

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, the description covers return structure well but lacks specifics on component breakdown format. Still sufficient for a 0-param tool; could mention if data is real-time or historical.

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?

No parameters exist, so baseline is 4. The description correctly omits parameter details as they are not needed. No value added or missing.

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 the tool computes an institutional risk score from weighted detection engine signals. It lists specific output components (score 0-100, risk level, narrative, breakdown, detection count), making the purpose highly specific and distinguishable from sibling tools.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives like fahali_get_portfolio_risk or fahali_get_market_verdict. The note about 'public data — no tier required' implies broad access, but no when-not or alternative suggestions.

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