risk_metrics

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint: true, confirming safe read operation. Description adds context by listing returned metrics (VaR, Sharpe, etc.), but does not disclose other behavioral traits like data freshness, rate limits, or error handling. With annotations covering safety, the description provides adequate but not extra value.

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?

Description is concise: two sentences plus a bullet list of metrics. It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 complexity (3 parameters, output schema exists), the description sufficiently explains what metrics are returned. It does not mention output schema details (handled by schema itself), but it could elaborate on data source or timeframe interpretation. Still, it is very adequate for a risk metrics tool.

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% (all parameters have descriptions in the schema). The description does not add new information about parameters beyond what is in the schema. Baseline score of 3 applies as schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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?

Description clearly states it calculates advanced risk metrics (VaR, Sharpe, Sortino, Beta, Max Drawdown) for stocks or ETFs. The verb 'Calculate' and resource 'risk metrics' is specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like technical_analysis or portfolio_analysis, which may also involve 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The phrase 'Professional-grade risk analysis' implies usage for risk assessment, but no exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned. Given the extensive sibling list, this is a notable gap.

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