Get Portfolio Risk

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds context about which metrics are computed, which is useful, but it does not disclose behavior such as how account_id null is handled or whether results are aggregated across accounts. The bar is lower given annotations, and the description provides moderate additional context.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It lists the key outputs without waste, achieving high information density in minimal space.

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 description covers the core purpose and output metrics, but it lacks parameter semantics and usage context. The output schema presumably documents return values, so that is covered, but the optional account_id is unexplained and no guidance on interpretation or prerequisites is given. For a read-only risk tool with a simple parameter list, it is partially complete but has clear gaps.

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 explain the account_id parameter, but it does not mention it at all. The description entirely fails to compensate for the schema gap, leaving the parameter's meaning and effect (e.g., default behavior when null) completely unspecified.

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 uses a specific verb ('Compute') and resource ('portfolio-wide risk metrics'), and enumerates exact metrics (margin utilisation, concentration by symbol, unrealised P&L, overall risk level). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_pnl or get_positions, which are narrower in scope.

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 implies usage for risk assessment but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., get_account_summary, get_positions) or any exclusion criteria. It lacks 'when not to use' or naming of alternatives, leaving the agent to infer.

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