risk_sharpe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool calculates ratios and returns annualized metrics, but it does not mention behavioral traits such as side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. It is adequate for a read-only computation tool.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. The inclusion of formulas adds clarity but slightly increases density. Overall efficient and earns its sentences.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description mentions '年化收益、年化波动率、下行波动率等完整数据' which gives a general idea of output but not exact field names or types. For a simple tool this is acceptable, but siblings like risk_drawdown might have richer output descriptions.

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 100% (both parameters described). The description adds value by clarifying that returns are daily and risk-free rate is annualized, and it provides the formulas that connect parameters to outputs. This goes beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 computes Sharpe and Sortino ratios, defines the formulas, and distinguishes it from sibling indicators and other risk tools like risk_drawdown and risk_var. The specific verb '衡量' (measure) and resource '风险调整后收益' (risk-adjusted return) precisely describe its function.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like risk_var or risk_drawdown. It implies usage for risk-adjusted return analysis but lacks guidance on context or exclusions.

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