get_risk_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'current' values, implying a real-time snapshot, but it does not disclose any side effects, auth requirements, or potential state changes. The description is too terse to convey behavior beyond the basic return action.

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, compact sentence that states the action and the returned data. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Return' and wastes no words.

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 parameterless read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and return contents. However, it lacks any context about when to use it (e.g., before placing trades) or how it relates to other tools. The output schema likely handles the return format, so the description is mostly sufficient.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the output rather than inputs.

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 'Return' as a specific verb and clearly lists the exact data points it provides (risk limits, daily loss consumed, exposure, limit utilization). This distinguishes it from siblings like update_risk_limits, which modifies rather than reads.

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 implies a read-only usage for checking current risk status, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_risk_limits or get_portfolio. No exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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