get_regime_adjusted_sizing

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: regime detection from SPY data and risk scaling percentages. However, it omits potential failure modes (e.g., if SPY data is unavailable), prerequisites, and whether the scaling is applied to the whole risk or variable percentage.

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 sentence that conveys the essential purpose and behavior with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the main action and efficiently packs in the regime detection and scaling rules.

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?

For a tool with complex behavior (regime detection, scaling) and 4 parameters, the description covers the core logic but lacks details on edge cases (e.g., what if regime is unknown?), error messages, or data dependencies (e.g., SPY data availability). Since an output schema exists, return values are less critical, but the description could be more complete.

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. It does not define any of the four parameters (account_size, entry_price, stop_loss, risk_pct). The description mentions 'risk percentage' but does not clarify its relationship to the parameters. This is insufficient for correct parameter usage.

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: calculating position size adjusted for market regime. It specifies the action ('Calculate position size'), the resource ('current market regime'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_market_regime' by integrating regime detection with scaling.

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 when to use (for regime-aware sizing) and provides scaling factors (bull=100%, choppy/transitional=75%, bear=50%). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives such as 'get_position_risk_check' for non-regime-based sizing.

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