ib_delta_exposure

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the calculation method (Black-Scholes), the grouping (by account and underlying symbol), and the local dependency. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether authentication is needed, or how errors are handled, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a brief method note and argument explanation. It is efficient and avoids fluff, though the 'Args' section partially overlaps with what the schema already defines, making it slightly redundant.

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 tool with a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it calculates, how, across what scope, and what the report contains. It does not describe the output format in detail, but that is not required given the simple input and clear purpose.

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 schema only defines 'port' as an integer with a default, but the description enriches it by specifying the exact values: '7496 for live, 7497 for paper.' This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and gives the agent actionable guidance.

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 uses a specific verb ('Calculate') with a precise resource ('delta-adjusted notional exposure across all IBKR accounts'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like ib_portfolio or ib_option_chain by focusing on delta-adjusted exposure aggregation.

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?

It clearly states the prerequisite: 'Requires TWS or IB Gateway running locally.' This gives essential context for when the tool can be used. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, so it falls short of a 5.

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