get_portfolio_risk_dashboard

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the full burden. It states it computes and returns data, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose authentication needs, performance impact, or whether the portfolio must exist. Adequate but could be more transparent.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, no wordiness. Every sentence adds meaningful information about the tool's output.

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 has an output schema and one optional parameter, the description covers the main return metrics. It is fairly complete, though lacking sibling differentiation. The presence of output schema lessens the need to explain return values.

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 description should compensate. The only parameter, portfolio_name, is mentioned as 'named portfolio' in the description but not explained further. The schema provides a default but no description; the tool adds minimal value beyond the parameter name.

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 computes a risk dashboard for a named portfolio, listing specific metrics. It effectively conveys the action and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling risk tools.

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 on when or when not to use this tool compared to alternatives. With many sibling tools like get_risk_alerts, get_position_risk_check, etc., the description lacks any usage context or exclusions.

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