calculate_risk_metrics

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

No annotations provided. Description reveals the constraint that lookback_days must yield >=30 trading-day bars or call is rejected, but does not disclose other behaviors like read-only nature or side effects.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then clear parameter docs. Slightly verbose but every sentence adds value. Could be more concise without losing 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?

Covers all parameters with defaults and usage notes, lists returned metrics. No output schema, but description adequately explains what to expect. Missing prerequisites or data source info, but sufficient for a focused financial metrics tool.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: code (stock code), benchmark_code (default and meaning), lookback_days (conversion to trading days, minimum constraint), risk_free_rate (default and context).

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?

Description clearly states it calculates risk metrics (beta, Sharpe, max drawdown, volatility, correlation) and distinguishes from siblings like calculate_dcf_valuation, which are valuation-focused.

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?

Explicitly states what the tool computes and provides defaults for benchmark and risk-free rate, implying usage context. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or compare to alternatives.

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