Get per-asset factor exposures and volatility breakdown for US tickers. See total, factor, and specific risk to identify what drives portfolio risk.
Per-asset factor exposures and total/factor/specific vol for each ticker.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| horizon | No | medium | |
| tickers | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It does state the output fields, implying a read-only retrieval, but it does not disclose behavior around horizons, model versions, or edge cases such as missing tickers or coverage limits.
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 concise sentence with no filler. The key content, per-asset factor exposures and vol breakdown, is front-loaded and earns its place.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not clarify the horizon parameter, the default behavior, how to interpret the vol terms, or what distinguishes this tool from the listed siblings, leaving an agent with meaningful ambiguity.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It covers 'tickers' implicitly with 'for each ticker', but 'horizon' is completely unexplained, including allowed values or how it affects the exposures and volatility estimates.
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 identifies the output: per-asset factor exposures and three volatility measures for each ticker. It distinguishes itself from portfolio-level siblings like get_portfolio_risk by using 'per-asset'. However, it is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verbed statement of what the tool does, so it falls just short of a 5.
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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_portfolio_risk, stress_test, or check_coverage. The only implicit hint is the 'per-asset' scope, which is not enough to route an agent reliably.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.