calculate_profit_risk_basic

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It clearly states the tool is a pure math calculation and requires no external connection or symbol lookup, which is transparent enough for a simple calculator. It does not mention edge cases or precision, but the simplicity keeps it adequate.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and key differentiating trait. Every word serves a purpose with no wasted content.

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 no output schema, low schema coverage, and five parameters, the description lacks essential details about return values and parameter semantics. It only covers the high-level purpose, leaving the agent with insufficient information to correctly invoke the tool or interpret 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 0%, but the description does not explain any parameter. It only mentions the overall purpose of risk/reward calculation. The schema has five parameters (entry_price, stop_loss, take_profit, volume, value_per_point) with no description of their roles, leaving the agent guessing about their meaning and usage.

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 calculates risk/reward ratio using price math and explicitly distinguishes it from tools requiring MT5 connection. 'Pure price-math' and 'No MT5 connection or symbol lookup needed' make the purpose specific and differentiate it from siblings like get_rates or get_symbol_info.

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 when to use: for quick calculations without MT5 dependency. The contrast with MT5-requiring tools provides clear context, but it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. However, the guidance is sufficient for an agent to decide between this and other tools.

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