risk_full-analysis

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations, such as 'PAID ONLY — no free tier' and 'Provide daily returns'. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which are consistent with the description's promise of a non-destructive, safe analysis.

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 (4 sentences), front-loaded with the most important information, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 lists the metrics returned but does not specify the exact structure of the output (e.g., JSON format). Given the absence of an output schema, slightly more detail on the return format would improve completeness. However, the list of metrics is adequate for an agent to understand what to expect.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant new meaning to parameters beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'daily returns series' is mentioned in both).

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 provides a complete risk tearsheet with a specific list of metrics (Sharpe, Sortino, VaR, etc.) and explicitly mentions it replaces 7 individual calls, distinguishing it from sibling tools like risk_drawdown, risk_kelly, and stats_sharpe-ratio.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Use when you need a complete risk tearsheet for a return series. Instead of calling 7 individual risk/stats endpoints...' It also indicates that the tool is paid-only, setting clear expectations for when it is appropriate.

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