risk_portfolio

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe computation. The description adds the list of 22 metrics and optional benchmark, but no unexpected behaviors or side effects beyond what annotations suggest.

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 succinct, with two clear sentences and a compact list of metrics. It front-loads the key output (22 risk metrics) and uses minimal yet informative language.

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 3 parameters with high schema coverage, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description adequately explains inputs and outputs. It could be slightly more specific about return format, but overall it's complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that benchmark_returns is optional for relative metrics, which is not fully detailed in the schema. This enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states it computes 22 risk metrics from a portfolio returns series, listing specific metrics like Sharpe, Sortino, VaR. This is specific to the tool and distinguishes it from siblings such as risk_drawdown or risk_correlation.

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 clearly advises use when you have a series of portfolio returns and need comprehensive risk analytics, and notes when benchmark returns are needed. While it doesn't explicitly exclude other contexts, the guidance is clear given the sibling list.

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