fahali_get_portfolio_risk

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses return values (risk score, VaR95, etc.) and access requirements, but does not mention side effects, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. The description is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 extremely concise, using three sentences to convey purpose, outputs, and requirements without extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the main action.

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 has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient detail about returned data (risk score, VaR95, drawdown, recommendations) and prerequisites. Minor omission: could mention update frequency or data freshness, but overall complete for this complexity.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the description adds no parameter information, which is unnecessary. Baseline is 4 for no parameters, and the description appropriately avoids redundant detail.

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 retrieves 'portfolio risk assessment' with specific outputs like risk score (0-100), VaR95, drawdown, and per-position recommendations. It distinguishes from siblings like fahali_get_portfolio_metrics by focusing on risk, but lacks explicit differentiation from other risk 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?

The description mentions prerequisites ('Requires connected exchange accounts' and 'Elite tier or higher'), which provides usage context. However, it does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives or indicate when not to use it, leaving the guidance incomplete.

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