Can this sizing scheme bankrupt me? First-passage ruin probability with Kelly (PAID $0.05)

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent but non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful payment context (0.05 USD USDC on eip155:8453 via x402) and the HTTP route, but says nothing about what the call requires or how ruin is computed.

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?

Two short sentences, with the question framing front-loaded and the route/price detail second. Efficient, though the price is duplicated in the title.

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?

The output schema covers return values, but for a paid tool with 8 fully optional, undocumented parameters and no usage guidance, the description leaves a caller unable to construct a meaningful request.

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 0% across 8 parameters, so the description must carry the load and it does not — capital, trades, win_rate, avg_win_r, avg_loss_r, risk_per_trade_pct, seed and as_of are all unexplained. Only the Kelly mention tangentially hints at which inputs matter.

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 title/description names the resource (first-passage ruin probability) and the method (Kelly), which is specific enough for an agent to grasp the computation. It implicitly separates this from siblings like v1_quant_monte_carlo or v1_portfolio_risk, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 gives only a remote route and a price, not when to call this versus sibling risk tools (v1_pretrade_risk, v1_strategy_capacity, v1_quant_monte_carlo). There are no preconditions or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer applicability from the 'bankrupt me' framing.

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