analyze_risk

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

No annotations exist, so the description fully bears the transparency burden. It details what the tool checks (concentration, correlation, volatility) and the optional candidate inclusion. However, it does not disclose rate limits, auth requirements, or any side effects, though none seem needed for a read-only analysis 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 well-structured with a brief intro, bulleted details, and clear Args/Returns sections. It front-loads the purpose and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 the output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values but does anyway, showing thoroughness. It covers all parameters, usage hints, and return structure completely for the tool's complexity.

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 0%, but the description provides comprehensive parameter explanations, including examples for portfolio_json, valid values for period, default for corr_threshold, and format for candidates. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 defines the tool's purpose: analyzing portfolio risk through concentration, correlation, and volatility checks. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by listing specific risk checks and optional candidate inclusion.

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 usage for portfolio risk analysis before swaps but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like compare_swaps or stress_test. No exclusions or when-not-to-use instructions are provided.

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