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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the score is dynamic and derived from spread plus tick variance, and flags Pro-tier access. However, it does not state whether the value is bounded, what higher/lower scores mean, or what the output contains, leaving notable gaps.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the core idea and adds the access note second. Every phrase contributes information, with no fluff or repetition.

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 is simple, has one optional parameter, and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values. It explains what the score is based on and Pro-tier access, but lacks usage context and score interpretation guidance, which an agent would benefit from.

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% and the description does not mention the 'instrument' parameter. However, the parameter is a single optional string with a clear name and default value (SPY), so semantic risk is low. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema's title and default provide basic clarity.

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 'dynamic execution risk score' from 'spread + tick variance,' identifying the specific resource and method. It does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools, but the metric's composition is unique enough to disambiguate it from other get_* 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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The 'Pro tier' note hints at access restrictions but does not explain intended use cases, prerequisites, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate.

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