get_risk_metrics

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states returns a dict with risk metrics data without specifying what metrics are included (e.g., beta, volatility). No mention of side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits.

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 very concise with only two lines plus Args/Returns. However, it lacks sufficient detail, especially on the return value, making it under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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 low complexity (one param, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to describe what 'risk metrics' includes, leaving the agent guessing the exact data returned. The return value description 'dict: Risk metrics data' is too vague.

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?

Only one parameter 'ticker' which is self-explanatory from its name. Schema coverage is 0% because description only repeats the parameter name and type. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but the parameter is simple enough.

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 states 'Retrieve risk metrics for a stock' with a clear verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_volatility_metrics' or 'get_quick_technical_indicators', which may partially overlap.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for risk metrics but does not mention exclusions or compare with similar tools among the many siblings.

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