update_risk_limits

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It communicates that updates occur at runtime without a restart and describes the consequence of daily_loss_limit_usdc (halt trading), but it omits important traits like persistence across restarts, permission requirements, immediate effect validation, or reversibility. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation 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 concise: one introductory sentence plus a structured list of arguments. Every sentence carries value, and the information is front-loaded with the core action and benefit. No fluff or 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 simplicity and presence of an output schema, the description covers the main parameter semantics but omits key contextual details: all parameters are optional (per schema), allowing partial updates where unspecified limits remain unchanged, and there is no mention of value validation or error conditions. These gaps could mislead an agent into thinking full parameter set is required.

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. It does so thoroughly, explaining each of the four parameters in plain language: max_position_usdc (per-position size), daily_loss_limit_usdc (halt trading threshold), max_exposure_usdc (total open exposure), and min_edge (with a concrete example '0.03 = 3%'). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Update runtime risk limits without restarting the server.' It uses a specific verb (update) and resource (runtime risk limits), and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_risk_status by emphasizing runtime modification and no-restart behavior.

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 usage by context (updating risk limits) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_risk_status for reading limits. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, though the sibling list makes the distinction inferable.

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