portfolio_risk_metrics

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses the output scope (metric categories and HEALTHY/CAUTION/AT_RISK statuses) and the underlying risk framework (Tasty Trade), which meaningfully informs an agent about what the tool computes. 'Dashboard' reasonably conveys a no-side-effect read operation, though freshness/snapshot semantics and behavior with zero positions are not addressed.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that names the resource first and then lists the delivered metrics efficiently. The Tasty Trade framework attribution adds context without bloat; only minor restructuring (e.g., grouping metrics) could improve it.

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 a single well-defined parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is sufficiently complete to support an invocation decision: an agent knows what metrics to expect and that the scope is portfolio-wide. Remaining gaps are the health-status thresholds and explicit differentiation from portfolio-sibling tools, but neither blocks correct invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The currency parameter is self-documenting via its enum, and the description's portfolio-scope hint implies currency selects the portfolio denomination, but the description adds no explicit explanation of the parameter's role beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific resource - a portfolio-level risk dashboard - and enumerates the concrete metrics it delivers (dollar greeks, ratio, margin utilization, concentration, health status). The 'portfolio-level' scope distinguishes it from instrument-specific siblings like get_ticker or get_order_book, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' and doesn't name the overlapping sibling tools get_portfolio_greeks or get_portfolio_summary.

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?

Usage context is implied by the portfolio-level framing and the metric list, so an agent can infer this is for aggregate risk assessment rather than instrument-level queries. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and the natural alternatives (get_portfolio_greeks, get_portfolio_summary, get_margins) are never mentioned or excluded.

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