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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by disclosing the return content (venues, pipeline, route) and framing it as a 'concrete action plan', which goes beyond the annotations. It does not mention potential errors or prerequisites, but given the read-only nature, this is acceptable.

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, information-dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the purpose ('Money-path resolver') and then enumerates the specific outputs, making it efficient and easily scannable. Every phrase contributes to the agent's understanding.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what input is expected and what the output will contain (venues, pipeline, route). It does not specify the exact structure of the returned data, but the enumeration of components is sufficient for most agent use cases. A perfect score would require explicit mention of formatting or edge cases.

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%—the parameter 'instrument' is described as 'Instrument/asset concept slug'. The description rephrases this as 'instrument/asset concept' but adds no new meaning or format details. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter fully.

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 (resolve) and resource (money-path/trade path) for an instrument/asset concept, and specifies the output: venues, execution pipeline, and place_order route. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_market or get_orderbook, which focus on market data rather than the full execution path.

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 it ('given an instrument/asset concept, return...') but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. There is no mention of sibling tools like search_markets or get_market, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context. It provides context but lacks exclusions or alternative routing.

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