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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure responsibility. It conveys signed quantity, single-holding scope, and the same validation as a POST endpoint, but does not explain side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or failure behavior for this mutation.

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 two sentences with no filler: the core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds useful API compatibility context. Every sentence earns its place, and the parenthetical distinction from a trade is efficient and high-value.

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?

Given 7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description is too thin to fully equip an agent. It explains the general purpose but omits parameter semantics, expected outcomes, and edge cases, leaving important context to inference.

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 only 29%, and the description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters. It adds context around 'signed quantity change' and references the POST endpoint, but asset, ticker, account, provider, and allow_new_values remain unexplained, leaving an agent unable to determine their intended values or relationships.

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 uses a specific verb and object: 'Record a signed quantity change on one holding'. It also explicitly distinguishes the operation from a trade, which differentiates it from the sibling log_trade tool without needing to inspect schemas.

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 clearly frames this as a balance update that is not a trade, giving an implied usage boundary against log_trade. It does not name the alternative explicitly or list specific scenarios, but the 'not a trade' exclusion is sufficient contextual guidance for an agent.

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