analyze_risk

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

No annotations exist, so the description must itself disclose behavior. It covers key aspects: auto-fetches live data, computes specific ratios, and notes payment ($0.01 USDC, ~500ms). No contradictions, though it could mention potential side effects or auth needs.

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 concise (6 sentences), well-structured, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy.

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 nested objects, 6 parameters, and no output schema, the description covers inputs, required vs optional, auto-fetched fields, return values (ratios and risk scores), and payment. Missing explicit output structure details but adequate overall.

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 83%, high, so baseline 3. The description adds value by clarifying that for known tickers only asset and weight are required, while others are auto-fetched. This goes beyond the schema's distinction of optional vs required.

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's purpose: 'Crypto portfolio risk profiling using live CoinGecko market data.' It specifies the verb (analyze/profiling), resource (portfolio risk), and distinguishes from siblings (e.g., analyze_factors, analyze_regime) by focusing on risk ratios and per-asset scores.

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 provides clear context on when to use: for portfolio risk profiling with known tickers, auto-fetching data. It explains inputs needed (asset, weight) but does not explicitly exclude when not to use or mention sibling tools as alternatives.

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