riskpilot_analyze

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds crucial behavioral context: 'Changes only a local simulated ledger' and 'Never places a Binance order.' It also discloses that the 'Agent OS source remains unavailable until its bridge is bound locally,' which is a significant operational constraint. These statements meaningfully expand on readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false.

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?

Every sentence carries distinct information: core purpose, side effects, safety boundary, and availability constraint. The description is compact, front-loaded with the main capability, and contains no redundant phrasing.

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?

Despite having nested objects, six parameters, multiple enums, and no output schema, the description does not explain how to construct a proposal, what scenario values mean, or what the tool returns. The only schema-level guidance is the request_id description about idempotency. This is insufficient for an agent to confidently call the tool.

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 description coverage is only 17%, so the tool description must compensate, but it does not explain most parameters. It clarifies the source enum slightly by noting agent_os unavailability, but prompt, proposal, scenario, symbol, and their relationships remain largely unexplained. The main description gives high-level intent but not enough field-level semantics for correct invocation.

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 a multi-step purpose: fetching a market snapshot, proposing or validating a structured trade, enforcing guardrails, and recording a paper fill. It also distinguishes itself from live trading by explicitly saying 'Never places a Binance order,' and the contrast with sibling tools riskpilot_policy and riskpilot_audit is evident from the focus on analysis and paper execution.

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 this is the tool for market analysis, trade proposal/validation, and paper-fill recording, and 'Never places a Binance order' signals it is not for live trading. However, it never explicitly tells the agent when to choose this over riskpilot_policy or riskpilot_audit, and gives no disqualifying conditions beyond the agent_os source being unavailable until locally bound.

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