risk_position-size

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns position size, dollar risk, and shares, but doesn't elaborate on computational behavior (e.g., rounding, fractional shares). It is adequate but adds little beyond annotations.

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?

Two sentences plus a concise list of returns. Every word contributes, with no fluff. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to scan.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and straightforward calculation, the description explains input and output sufficiently. Mentioning units or rounding could enhance, but it is complete enough for the agent to understand usage and expected results.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter described. The description adds context by grouping inputs ('account value, risk percentage, entry price, stop-loss price') and clarifying that risk_per_trade is a fraction with a default of 0.02, adding meaning 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?

Clearly states it calculates position size using fixed fractional method with risk/reward targeting. The verb 'calculating' and specific resource 'shares/contracts' precisely define the tool's purpose, distinguishing it from siblings like risk_kelly and risk_drawdown.

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?

Explicitly specifies when to use: 'when calculating how many shares/contracts to buy given account size and risk tolerance.' It lists required inputs but does not explicitly compare with alternatives like risk_kelly, though the context of siblings allows inference.

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