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

Beyond the minimal annotations, the description discloses the dry-run preview behavior, live auth scope requirements, plan prerequisite, server-side validation, a 10/min rate cap, and 24-hour idempotency duplicate semantics. It also clarifies the destructive scope of closebuy/closesell, which is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs before invoking a trading tool.

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 dense and front-loads the core purpose before moving into operational constraints. It is efficient and mostly earns its length, but the single-paragraph form makes several independent rules harder to scan than they could be.

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 28-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and partial schema coverage, the description covers operational safety and key side effects well. It does not fully explain the action enum, many numeric parameters, or what a successful response contains beyond the duplicate indicator, so it remains incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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 description adds important meaning for dry_run, lot, idempotency_key, close aliases, and symbol/action validation. However, with 28 parameters and only 54% schema description coverage, many parameters such as tp1–tp5, trailing, breakeven, entry_pct, and entry_pips, as well as most action enum values, remain unexplained by either the schema or the description.

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: submit a trading signal to YOUR EA. That clearly separates it from read-oriented siblings such as accounts, ea_status, recent_signals, and signal_detail, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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 operating conditions: dry_run=true previews only, live sending needs a trade-scoped key, and a trading plan is required. It also explains when to use idempotency_key and when to prefer close with side over closebuy/closesell, though most other action choices are not similarly explained.

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