risk_adjusted_analysis

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral traits. It mentions ATR-based analysis and portfolio position display, but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or whether it modifies any data. The output schema exists but is not described.

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 extremely concise with two front-loaded sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds context about portfolio positions. Every word 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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks details about return format, how portfolio context is used, and prerequisites (e.g., needing a portfolio). For a risk analysis tool, this is adequate but leaves gaps compared to more complete tools.

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 100% with both parameters described. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema (ticker and risk_level). It does not elaborate on how risk_level influences the analysis, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it performs 'ATR-based position sizing and risk analysis with portfolio context', specifying the verb (analysis) and resource (position sizing/risk). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_position_risk_check' or 'get_risk_alerts' by focusing on ATR-based sizing and portfolio context.

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 usage for risk analysis with portfolio context and notes it shows existing positions, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_position_risk_check) or provide exclusion criteria.

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