get_risk_metrics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that metrics are annualized and can be broken down per investment, adding meaningful behavioral context. However, it omits output format, calculation specifics, or any caveats about data history or permissions.

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?

One efficient sentence that front-loads the core function, followed by a parenthetical scope and a practical use-case phrase. No filler or repetition; every word contributes purpose or usage context.

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?

The tool has 5 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the primary purpose and breakdown behavior but does not state what the returned metrics structure looks like or how parameters like interval and from affect results. This leaves an agent with some gaps for correct invocation.

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 schema covers 80% of parameters with descriptions, and the description adds the meaningful relationship of breakdown=true to per-investment output. It does not explain default intervals or date handling, but the schema's descriptions and enums handle most parameter meaning.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('annualized risk (volatility) and return metrics'), with clear scope: whole portfolio or per investment via breakdown=true. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_portfolio_performance or get_portfolio_valuation.

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?

Provides an explicit use case ("Use this for 'how risky is my portfolio?'") that signals when to choose this tool. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the use-case phrasing gives sufficient context.

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