risk_get

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

No annotations are provided, and the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'Show', which implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention potential errors (e.g., invalid account), required permissions, or whether the operation has side effects. For a simple getter, this is minimally adequate.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that lists exactly what the tool shows. There is no redundancy or filler, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no nested objects, and an output schema provided), the description is largely sufficient to understand its purpose. It lacks details on valid account values or error behavior, but these are not critical for such a straightforward getter, and the output schema covers return structure.

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 description connects the sole 'account' parameter to the tool's purpose ('the account's limits'), giving it contextual meaning. However, it does not specify the expected format, whether it is an ID or name, or any constraints, and the schema itself has no description (0% coverage). Thus, it adds only minimal value beyond the 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 states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Show') and a well-defined resource ('the account's shorting, naked-option, leverage, and order-size limits'). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'risk_set', which presumably sets these limits.

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 retrieving account risk limits but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'risk_set' or 'account_details'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, so guidance is inferred rather than explicit.

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