get_systemic_risk

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe, non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about the components of the assessment (VIX, credit spreads, liquidity). It does not contradict annotations and provides sufficient behavioral insight for a read-only 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 extremely concise: a single sentence naming the tool's output and components, plus a brief usage hint. Every phrase is meaningful, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview of what the tool returns. However, it could be more explicit about the output format (e.g., a score, text summary, or numeric values) to ensure complete comprehension.

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 has no parameters, so the input schema fully covers semantics. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters. The baseline score of 4 applies as there is no param information required.

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 retrieves current systemic risk assessment using VIX, credit spreads, and liquidity indicators, directly addressing questions like 'Is the overall market risk high now?' and 'Is it suitable to enter?'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on specific metrics.

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 when to use it by providing example questions. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with alternative tools like get_market_sentiment or get_macro_snapshot, which could serve similar purposes.

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