get_position_risk_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states the tool 'shows' metrics, implying it is read-only and non-destructive. The 'get' prefix reinforces this. It also discloses what specific metrics are returned (sector concentration, VaR). This is adequate behavioral transparency for a read-side tool, though an explicit 'does not modify' statement would be ideal.

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 that front-load the purpose and efficiently convey the tool's function and output. No redundant information. Every sentence serves a clear purpose.

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 description covers the core purpose and output metrics but omits prerequisites (e.g., does the portfolio need to exist?), the optional portfolio_name parameter's role, and a reference to the output schema. Given the tool's complexity (4 params, output schema present), the description leaves some gaps for the agent to infer.

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 4 parameters (ticker, shares, entry_price, portfolio_name) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain what each parameter means beyond the tool's overall purpose. While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description fails to add semantic value such as clarifying that 'shares' is the number of shares to hypothetically add or that 'entry_price' is the assumed purchase price. This lack of guidance forces the agent to rely solely on naming conventions.

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?

Clearly states it's a pre-trade risk check that shows how a new position affects portfolio risk, returning current vs projected metrics like sector concentration and VaR. This specific verb-resource pairing distinguishes it from siblings like add_portfolio_position (which actually adds) and get_portfolio_risk_dashboard (which shows overall risk without hypothetical addition).

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 opens with 'Pre-trade risk check', clearly implying it should be used before adding a position. It provides context for when to use, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives among the many sibling tools. However, the purpose is contextually clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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