get_portfolio_greeks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains the operation shape: an aggregated read of portfolio greeks with a per-position breakdown. It does not discuss auth, data freshness, or rate limits, but for a read-only getter the core behavior is well disclosed.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, outputs are listed compactly, and the use-case sentence adds purpose without padding.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately explains what the tool returns and its scope. It covers the essential usage context. A slightly higher score would require mention of limitations or explicit sibling differentiation, which is not essential given the tool's simplicity.

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 sole parameter 'currency' has 100% schema coverage with an enum, so the schema already documents it. The description only repeats 'for a currency' and adds no additional semantic nuance such as settlement vs. underlying currency behavior. The baseline for high schema coverage applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a precise resource ('aggregated portfolio greeks across all open option positions for a currency'), and explicitly lists the outputs (delta, gamma, vega, theta, per-position breakdown). This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from siblings like get_positions or portfolio_risk_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 provides clear context for use ('Essential for understanding net risk'), which signals when an agent should reach for it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusionary conditions, so it stops short of the highest tier.

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