Stress a crypto portfolio

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safe deterministic nature is covered. The description adds useful behavioral boundaries beyond the annotations: 'Symbols are scenario labels' and 'No liquidation/probability model', clarifying what the tool does not compute. However, it says nothing about output shape, precision, or error behavior for a tool with no output schema.

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 very short sentences with no waste, front-loading the core mechanism and following with scope and exclusions. It is perhaps too terse for the parameter burden, but structure is efficient.

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?

For a tool with 2 required parameters, a nested positions array with 6 fields, and 0% schema coverage, the description is far too thin. An agent would not know how equity_usd interacts with positions, how cost_usd affects P&L, whether price_change_pct is per-asset, or what the response contains, and no output schema fills these 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 coverage is 0% and the description adds almost nothing about the two parameters. It notes '20 exposures' (matching positions.maxItems) and 'Symbols are scenario labels', implying price_change_pct semantics and that asset is a label, but it never explains equity_usd, side, notional_usd, venue, cost_usd, or the units of price_change_pct. With zero schema descriptions, the description should compensate and largely does not.

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?

States a specific action (caller-input linear shocks) applied to a crypto portfolio with explicit scope (20 exposures) and listed outputs (P&L, equity, asset/venue concentration). Distinguishes itself from siblings like venue_concentration and exit_cost by being a multi-exposure shock simulator, though it does not name alternatives directly.

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?

Implies usage by naming inputs (caller-input shocks, symbols as scenario labels) and outputs, so an agent can infer when this is the right tool, but it never explicitly says when to use this versus exit_cost, venue_concentration, or crypto_exit_check. The disclaimer 'No liquidation/probability model' rules out one use case but does not route to alternatives.

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