get_kronos_risk

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It adds the cost ($0.02 USDC) and indicates it returns current state and streaks, but does not mention whether it is read-only, response format, or any side effects. The cost disclosure is valuable, but other behavioral context is lacking.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose and adds the cost as a key detail. Every word contributes, with no redundancy or irrelevant information.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool, the description provides a clear list of outputs (risk state, streaks, cooldown context) and notes the cost. It lacks details about the output shape or pagination, but given the simplicity, it is mostly sufficient. No output schema exists, so the description could slightly expand on what 'cooldown context' entails.

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?

The tool accepts zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter meanings. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description confirms the lack of inputs implicitly by mentioning no arguments.

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 function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Kronos market-risk state'), and also lists distinct outputs ('signal streaks', 'cooldown context'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_kronos_signals and get_kronos_history.

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 it is used for current risk-related data, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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