assess_trade_safetyRead fixed public native Trade Safety context from Seiche and Undertow, plus conditional LiquiLens context, and issue a short-lived SHA-256-only sandbox receipt. This tool cannot recommend, preview with a broker, route, resize, custody, settle, or execute an order.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| policy | Yes | ||
| request | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds real behavioral detail beyond the annotations: the source context is fixed/public/conditional, the receipt is short-lived and SHA-256-only, and the tool performs no advisory or order-related side effects. This does not contradict the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations.
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 front-loaded sentences with no filler: the first states what the tool reads and produces, the second draws a compact boundary of non-goals. The dense qualifiers earn their place.
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?
The scope, safety profile, and output receipt are clear, but an agent cannot determine how to populate the required request and policy objects, and there is no output schema to clarify the response. This is a material gap for a tool with fully opaque nested parameters.
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% and both required parameters are bare objects. The description never mentions request or policy, what fields they need, or how they relate to the exact order or safety policy, so the agent gets no help constructing arguments.
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 specific action ('Read ... context') and an outcome ('issue a short-lived SHA-256-only sandbox receipt'), and the non-goal list separates it from execution/recommendation tools. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling trade_safety_capabilities, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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 second sentence gives valuable when-not guidance: it should not be used to recommend, preview, route, or execute orders. There is no positive trigger condition or named alternative to route an agent when those workflows are needed, so the usage context is mostly implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.