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

With no annotations, the description bears the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that an 'actionable trade plan' is returned; it says nothing about auth requirements, data freshness, rate limits, or what happens when portfolio_size_usd is omitted (it is optional).

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with capability and ending on the concrete deliverable. No filler or repetition, though the enumerations could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description should carry more: it conveys the general deliverable but not the shape of the trade plan or how the single parameter affects the result. Adequate for orientation, incomplete for invocation.

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 0% for the single parameter, so the description must compensate. 'Position sizing (Kelly Criterion)' implies portfolio_size_usd drives sizing, which is meaningful, but units, whether it is required in practice, and acceptable ranges remain unstated.

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 names a concrete resource (trading signals/trade plan) and enumerates the analytical methods (Kelly Criterion sizing, chain rotation, multi-timeframe analysis), so an agent can tell what it produces. It does not, however, differentiate from siblings such as 'markets', and the opaque name 'alpha' carries no meaning on its own.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative among siblings (infer, markets, stt, tts). The phrase 'institutional-grade' implies sophistication but gives the agent no condition for selecting this tool over another.

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