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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses TTL (60s), model-agnostic behavior, compliance with SEC/CFTC, latency, exchange list, return fields, and disambiguation of 'SMA'. Fully transparent about what the tool does and its constraints.

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 lengthy but well-organized with clear sections. Every sentence adds value, especially given the safety-critical context. It is front-loaded with purpose and usage, then details compliance and exchanges. Could be slightly more concise, but the detail is 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 tool with 1 parameter, 28 enum values, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers everything: purpose, usage, return format, safety rules, compliance, latency, and even acronym clarification. It is fully complete for an AI agent to use 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 coverage is 100% with one parameter 'mic' having an enum. The description adds meaning by providing exchange name examples for each code and directing to list_exchanges for full discovery. It goes beyond the schema to aid selection.

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 returns an 'Ed25519-signed market-state receipt for pre-trade verification'. The verb 'returns' and specific resource identify the tool's unique role among siblings (schedule, payment, list). It distinguishes itself as a safety gate, not just a data retrieval.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'call this BEFORE executing any trade' and defines use as 'pre-trade verification gate'. Provides actionable rules: 'SAFE TO EXECUTE check: status must be OPEN and receipt not expired', 'FAIL-CLOSED RULE', and what to do if unreachable. No ambiguity.

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