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?

The readOnlyHint annotation is true, and the description is consistent: this tool explains and returns steps rather than executing real trading operations. It adds useful context by explaining that unavailable real tools mean the app is not installed on the machine, which is a meaningful behavioral signal beyond the 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 description is front-loaded with 'COMECE POR AQUI' and a crisp statement of what it does. It is longer due to bilingual repetition, but the English portion adds detail about being a quantitative trading strategy factory, so the length is mostly justified.

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 zero-parameter informational tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool is, when to invoke it, what it returns, and how to detect that the app is not installed. It could specify the return format in more detail, but nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide to call it and understand its role.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema has 100% coverage (empty properties), so there is nothing for the description to clarify. With no parameters, the baseline of 4 applies and the description does not need to add parameter-level semantics.

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 a specific verb and resource: it explains AlgoMaker and returns the exact steps from having only Claude to mining and executing in the user's account. However, it does not fully differentiate itself from the sibling algomaker_instalar, since it explicitly lists 'como instalar' as a trigger for this tool even though an install-specific sibling exists.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Chame isto quando alguém perguntar o que é o AlgoMaker, como começar, como instalar, ou quando pedir para usar o AlgoMaker e as ferramentas de verdade... não estiverem disponíveis'. This provides clear context and a detection heuristic, but it does not name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it.

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?

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates this is a read-only informational tool, and the description is consistent with that. Beyond the annotation, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it warns about the need to close and reopen Claude after installation because the connector is registered at startup. This goes beyond the basic safety profile and helps the agent set correct user expectations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by the key caveat about restarting Claude. However, the PT and EN versions largely duplicate each other, which adds some redundancy. Still, the extra details are useful, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 simple informational tool with one optional parameter and read-only annotations, the description covers the main facts: installation steps, download link, and the restart requirement. There is no output schema, but the tool likely presents instructions directly, so no further return-value explanation is necessary. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit mention of the OS parameter in the description text.

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 schema already documents the single optional parameter 'sistema' with its possible values windows/mac/linux, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not elaborate further on how the parameter affects the output, but since the schema covers it, a 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 the tool provides step-by-step installation instructions for AlgoMaker on this machine, including a download link. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which cover account opening, general start, and 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 intended use case is implied by the phrase 'passo a passo para instalar o AlgoMaker', but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over sibling tools or any exclusions. It is reasonable to infer that it is for installation only, but the description does not state this explicitly.

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 description goes further by disclosing that the tool does not validate any key — that happens on the client's machine after installation. It also explains the recommended behavior if a key is pasted early (store it, install first), which adds meaningful operational transparency beyond the 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 description is front-loaded with its core purpose: 'Como o cliente ativa a licença dele — e o que funciona sem ela.' It is bilingual but compact, and each sentence carries practical information about the key check and handling of early-pasted keys. Slightly longer than ideal due to duplication, but not wasteful.

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 one-parameter informational tool without an output schema and with readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description adequately covers the activation flow, the no-key-check behaviour, and how to handle premature key pasting. It could explicitly say to use it for license questions, but the overall context is complete enough for an agent to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description relates to the boolean `tem_chave` by discussing key presence and activation scenarios, but it does not explicitly tie the parameter to the tool's behavior or output. It adds marginal but not essential meaning beyond the schema.

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 exactly what the tool does: it explains how the client activates their license and what works without it. It explicitly says 'NÃO confere chave nenhuma aqui' (no key is checked here) and clarifies the check happens on the client's machine after installation, distinguishing it from key-checking or activation 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?

The description provides a concrete scenario: if the client pastes a key before having the app, the agent should save the key and send the client to install first. This implies the tool is for post-install license guidance and implicitly routes to the sibling install tool. It does not explicitly enumerate alternatives, but gives sufficient context for when to use it.

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