AlgoMaker — quantitative trading strategy factory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds important behavioral requirements: always present the partnership link AND the statement of compensated partnership together, and never frame the link as neutral. This goes beyond the annotation and guides agent behavior appropriately.

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 moderately concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage triggers and compliance notes. It avoids redundancy, though it could be tightened by merging some clauses without losing clarity.

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 no output schema and a single optional parameter, the description adequately covers when to call it, what information to include in the response, and how to present it. The missing link URL and step details are likely internal and not required for the agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 single optional parameter 'pais' has 100% schema coverage with a clear description. The tool description does not elaborate on it, but no additional clarification is necessary given the schema already documents its purpose.

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 explicitly states the tool's function: guiding the client through opening an account at Bybit, step by step. It distinguishes itself from siblings (algomaker_comecar, instalar, licenca) by focusing specifically on broker account creation rather than robot setup or licensing.

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 provides clear trigger conditions: 'when he says he doesn't have a broker yet, never operated crypto, or asks where the robot will execute.' It also gives a compliance directive (always disclose partnership). While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, the triggers are specific and actionable.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context: it is an orientation tool, it returns step-by-step instructions, and its side-effect-free availability signals that the engine is not yet installed. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the call-to-action and ordered from purpose to triggers, which is efficient. The full Portuguese/English duplication and parenthetical tool lists make it longer than strictly necessary, costing a point on tightness.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the full burden and mostly discharges it: it says what it returns (exact steps) and when it fires. It does not spell out the relationship to algomaker_instalar/algomaker_licenca, which would make the onboarding flow fully navigable.

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?

Zero parameters with 100% schema coverage, so there is nothing to document; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed for this call.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: it explains what AlgoMaker is and returns exact onboarding steps from 'only Claude' to 'mining in my account'. However, it does not clearly differentiate itself from its actual siblings (algomaker_instalar, algomaker_licenca, abrir_conta) — it names non-sibling runtime tools instead, leaving the boundary with the installer/license tools implicit.

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?

'COMECE POR AQUI' plus explicit triggers: use when asked what AlgoMaker is, how to start, how to install, or when the real tools (mine_strategies, portfolio_estrutura, exec_status) are unavailable because the engine is not installed. This gives a clear positive condition and a concrete diagnostic negative condition.

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

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

Annotations already mark this as readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is known; the description goes further by disclosing that there is no installer binary, the engine arrives via `uv`, the UI is a local web panel on 127.0.0.1, and — critically — Claude must be closed and reopened after connector registration. That restart prerequisite is genuine operational context an agent could not get from the schema or annotations.

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 critical constraint ('NÃO EXISTE APLICATIVO PARA BAIXAR') and the restart caveat are front-loaded and emphatic, which helps scanning. However, the trailing [EN] sentence largely re-states the Portuguese content, and the bilingual duplication plus rhetorical framing ('o detalhe que quase todo mundo esquece') add length without new information.

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 guidance-style tool with one optional parameter, no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the essential operational caveats (no installer, uv-based engine, local panel, required Claude restart). It is complete enough to act on; only the routing relative to sibling tools remains unaddressed.

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?

There is a single optional parameter whose schema description coverage is 100% ('windows | mac | linux'). The description merely restates the same platform values ('Windows, Mac ou Linux') without adding syntax, defaults, or behavior for omitting it, so it does not exceed the schema baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource — 'O passo a passo para instalar o MOTOR do AlgoMaker' — and explicitly rules out the common misconception of a downloadable app. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling algomaker_comecar, which by name suggests a potentially overlapping 'getting started' purpose.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent is told the commands are 'comandos que o próprio agente roda' and that a Claude restart is required after registering the connector, which hints at when in the flow this is needed. But there is no explicit 'use this when X, use algomaker_comecar when Y' routing, so the agent must infer the boundary between install, licensing and onboarding siblings.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them — no key is validated here, validation happens on the client's machine after installation. This prevents the agent from attempting validation in-conversation, which is real behavioral value.

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 key point (no key checked here) is front-loaded and the practical instruction is useful, but the text is long for a one-parameter tool and the [EN] sentence largely repeats the Portuguese opening, adding redundancy rather than new information.

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 read-only, openWorld=false informational tool with one fully-documented parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, the no-validation behavior, and the handoff to installation. It is adequately complete, though it does not enumerate which features the licence actually unlocks.

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?

There is a single parameter (tem_chave) with 100% schema description coverage ('o cliente já comprou e tem uma chave?'). The description does not reference the parameter at all, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema — the baseline 3 applies.

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 states what the tool covers (what the AlgoMaker licence unlocks and what works without it) and explicitly disclaims key validation, which separates it from the install/account siblings. It is clear but framed as an informational topic rather than a crisp verb+resource, and it never names the sibling tools it is distinct from.

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?

It gives a concrete routing rule: if the client pastes a key before having the engine, store it and send them to install first ('mandá-lo instalar primeiro'). That is explicit when/when-not guidance, though it describes the alternative action rather than naming the sibling tool algomaker_instalar.

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