risk_assessment

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

No annotations are present, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It does add context like position_size for 'position-specific metrics' and lists computed outputs, but it doesn't state read-only nature, data sources, potential errors, or any side effects. This is average disclosure for a read-only analytics 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 a single purposeful sentence plus a clean Args list. No redundant or filler text; every sentence earns its place and is easy to scan.

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?

Despite missing output schema, the description names the key metrics returned, giving a reasonable expectation of output contents. It covers all parameters and their purpose, but lacks detail on output format, units, or edge cases. For a straightforward analysis tool, this is sufficiently complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. The Args section clarifies each parameter: symbol as ticker, period with default, and position_size as optional dollars for position-specific metrics. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could specify period format options or constraints.

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 starts with 'Assess risk metrics including volatility, beta, VaR, and drawdown', which uses a specific verb and resource, and enumerates distinctive output metrics. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like price_history, fundamentals, and option chain.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance. The context 'risk metrics' implies use for risk analysis, but no exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools are provided. It is a clear but implicit usage cue, not a strong guideline.

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