avanza_paper_risk_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only says 'Evaluate guardrails.' It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, how the guardrail result is represented, or whether calling it affects session state. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for an agent deciding how to use the result.

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 with no filler. It communicates the core purpose and timing in as few words as possible while remaining clear.

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?

For a tool with eight parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It does not explain what the returned evaluation looks like, how an agent should interpret pass/fail conditions, or what side effects (if any) the call has. This leaves important operational context missing.

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%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. While the parameter names and defaults are mostly self-explanatory, the relationship between account_id, session_id, and tenant_session_id is ambiguous, and the description does not clarify which of these are required or how the limit parameters interact.

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 action ('Evaluate'), a specific resource ('paper-session guardrails'), and the timing ('before allowing a new trade entry'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from paper-order execution and session summary tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling as an alternative.

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 'before allowing a new trade entry' gives clear contextual guidance on when this tool should be invoked. It implies this is a pre-trade gate rather than a post-trade reporting tool, though it stops short of explicitly listing when-not-to-use cases or alternative tools.

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