get_statistics_risks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It honestly reveals a key limitation (empty response for stocks/ETFs) and defines the output scope (standardized time horizons and metric list). It does not cover error scenarios or pagination behavior, but the disclosed limitation is significant and useful.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds useful detail (time horizons, asset-type caveat, metric list). There is no redundancy or filler.

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?

Without an output schema or annotations, the description reasonably conveys what the response contains (listed metrics across time horizons) and the main caveat for asset types. It does not mention return structure (e.g., array/object shape) or pagination, but given the parameter schema is rich, this is acceptable.

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 100%, so the schema already defines each parameter. The description adds context about the metrics that might be used in filters/sorting, but does not further elaborate on parameter syntax or semantics beyond what the schema provides, aligning with the baseline.

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 returns risk and risk-adjusted performance metrics for an asset across standardized time horizons (3y, 5y, 10y). It lists specific metrics (Alpha, Beta, Sharpe Ratio, etc.), distinguishing it from siblings like get_statistics_general and get_statistics_annual_returns.

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 a clear usage condition: risk metrics are available for mutual funds, but for stocks and ETFs the response may be empty. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when to use a different tool, such as get_statistics_general, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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