AlphaBotPro Trading API

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing: no statement about auth requirements, whether verification is idempotent, what happens if the reference is unknown or the payment is still pending, or whether receiving a key changes backend state. 'Receive a key' hints at a side effect but is not explained.

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with zero padding. It is concise, though the brevity is partly the result of under-specification rather than efficiency.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description does not carry enough information for an agent to invoke this tool confidently. For a tool that returns a credential-like key, the absence of return/behavior detail is a meaningful gap.

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% across two parameters, and the description never mentions either one. It never explains what payment_reference_id is or when the optional tx_hash is needed versus omitted — a critical fork the agent cannot resolve from any available field.

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?

States a verb ('verify') and resource ('payment'), so the basic action is identifiable, but 'receive a key' is unexplained jargon — what kind of key, and whether it's a license/access token, is left ambiguous. No sibling in the list overlaps with payment verification, so no differentiation is needed, but the purpose remains under-specified.

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 provides no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. after purchase_access or after a payment is submitted), no mention of which identifier to supply, and no exclusions. The agent must infer the entire workflow context from the name alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses almost nothing. 'Public offerings' weakly implies no authentication is required and that the operation is a read, but nothing is said about permissions, rate limits, or result shape for what appears to be a catalog-listing call.

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?

Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than economy — six words that leave the resource and return content undefined. Nothing is front-loaded because there is essentially no content to order.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter documentation, the description is the agent's only source of information, and it states neither what a 'catalog' contains nor what a 'sample payload' is. For a zero-argument entry-point tool in a nine-tool set, this is insufficient to guide correct 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There are no argument semantics for the description to clarify, and it introduces no misleading parameter expectations.

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 is a sentence fragment ('Public offerings + sample payloads.') with no verb and an ambiguous noun — 'offerings' could be signals, expert advisors, or subscriptions. It does not distinguish this tool from close siblings like get_stock_catalog or get_signals, so an agent cannot confidently tell what resource is being fetched.

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 conditions, and no mention of alternatives among the eight siblings. The only implied constraint is the word 'public', which hints at unauthenticated scope but is never stated as a usage rule.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Single-use' is a genuinely useful trait (the link cannot be re-consumed, so repeat calls may fail), but nothing is said about expiration, whether a fresh link is generated per call, or the auth/entitlement required.

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?

Extremely short and front-loaded with the key attribute, so it wastes no words, but it reads as an under-specified label rather than a purposeful description of the operation.

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 an undocumented required parameter, no annotations and no output schema, the definition leaves too much unexplained: what 'EA' is, what the slug resolves to, and what the returned link can be used for. An agent would have to guess.

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%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'slug' parameter, but it says nothing about what the slug identifies (the EA? the user? the purchase?). This leaves the sole required parameter ambiguous.

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 phrase names the resource (an EA download link) and one distinguishing attribute (single-use), so an agent can infer it retrieves a link. However it is a noun fragment with no verb and no clarification of what 'EA' means or how it differs from siblings like purchase_access or list_expert_advisors.

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?

No statement of when to call this versus alternatives, no prerequisite (e.g. prior purchase or entitlement), and no note on the relationship to purchase_access or list_expert_advisors. Usage must be entirely inferred.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and states almost nothing: read-only status, auth requirements, whether results are cached or time-bounded, and what 'signal' refers to are all undisclosed. The single noun phrase cannot cover a zero-parameter analytics call.

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?

It is only three words, so nothing is wasted, but it reads as an under-specified fragment rather than a front-loaded sentence. Brevity here reflects missing content rather than disciplined editing.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and no parameters, the description is the sole source of context and it omits the metric definition, aggregation window, and return shape. An agent cannot reliably decide to call it or interpret the result.

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 tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond the absent filters (symbol, timeframe, account), which is the baseline 4 case for parameterless tools.

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 fragment 'Win rate per symbol' communicates the metric returned (win rate, grouped by symbol) but supplies no verb, no scope, and no differentiation from the sibling get_signals. An agent can guess the resource but cannot confirm what operation is performed (compute on the fly? read stored stats?).

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 guidance on when to call this versus get_signals, get_signals performance contexts, or get_warroom_analysis. No prerequisites, timeframes, or exclusions are stated anywhere in the definition.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: 'live' hints at real-time data but there is no statement about auth requirements, refresh cadence, caching, rate limits, or result shape. For a tool with zero annotations and no output schema, this is a significant gap.

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?

A single short fragment with no filler, front-loading the instruments and the 'live' qualifier. It is efficient, though borderline under-specified rather than genuinely concise-and-complete.

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?

With no annotations, no parameters, and no output schema, the description is the only source of information an agent has, and it omits what a signal contains, whether access is gated, and how fresh the data is. It is not adequate for a tool whose entire contract rests on the description.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. No parameter-related claims are made or needed.

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 the resource (XAUUSD/BTCUSD signals) and qualifies them as 'latest live', which distinguishes it from the sibling get_signal_performance. However, it is a noun fragment rather than a clear verb+resource statement, and it never defines what a 'signal' contains (entry price, direction, TP/SL), leaving the actual purpose somewhat vague.

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 guidance on when to call this versus get_signal_performance or get_warroom_analysis, no prerequisites (subscription/access), and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the sibling names.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the entire burden of behavioral disclosure, and it supplies none. It says nothing about freshness of the detections, whether the result is a static catalog or a live feed, or whether any auth/entitlement is required.

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 a single noun phrase, which is under-specification rather than conciseness. It is short but conveys no actionable content.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool the description is still far too thin: an agent cannot tell what the returned detections represent or how they differ from get_signals. It omits entirely the purpose and result shape, leaving the invocation decision unsupported.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema confirms an empty properties object, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.

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 fragment "AI stock detections" names a resource but supplies no verb or scope, so it reads as a restated label rather than an explanation of what the tool does. It also fails to separate itself from close siblings like get_signals, get_catalog, or get_signal_performance.

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 indication of when to call this tool, what triggers it, or which sibling to prefer for a given need. The agent must guess between this and get_signals or get_catalog.

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

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about data source, freshness window, auth requirements, or response shape. The single word "Latest" implies recency ordering but no retrieval semantics are explained.

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?

Four words is appropriately short for a no-argument read tool, so there is no padding. However, the fragment lacks even a subject-verb structure, so being this terse costs information rather than earning conciseness.

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 read tool with no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is the only place to explain what the briefings contain and in what form they return. It supplies none of that, leaving the tool's output entirely opaque.

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 tool takes zero parameters and has 100% schema coverage on an empty object, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool has a baseline of 4.

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 is a bare noun phrase, "Latest War Room briefings," that essentially restates the tool name (War Room analysis -> War Room briefings) without a verb, scope, or statement of what the analysis contains. It adds only the recency hint "Latest." An agent cannot tell from this what a "briefing" is or what domain it covers.

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 mention of alternatives among the siblings (check_payment, get_signals, get_signal_performance, etc.). The only implied usage cue is "Latest," which merely suggests it returns the most recent item.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The phrase 'public metadata' weakly implies a safe read with no auth requirement, but nothing is said about pagination, result size, rate limits, or whether the list is filtered by the authenticated user.

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?

It is extremely short and front-loaded with the resource name, but it is a bare noun phrase rather than a sentence, so brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is the only signal available, yet it does not say what an EA record contains, how results are ordered, or how this differs from get_catalog. It is not complete enough for confident 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the empty schema already shows.

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 fragment 'EA catalog (public metadata)' names the resource being listed but supplies no verb and no scope beyond 'public metadata'. It is not distinguishable from the sibling get_catalog, so an agent cannot tell which one to reach for based on the description alone.

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 exclusions, and no mention of the closely related siblings get_catalog or get_ea_download. The agent is left to guess whether this or get_catalog is the correct entry point.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing: it doesn't say whether invoices expire, whether the call is idempotent, what happens if one already exists for a tier, whether auth is required, or how the invoice is paid. For a mutating, money-related tool this is a substantial gap.

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?

A single short sentence with zero wasted words and a front-loaded verb, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise — the brevity comes at the cost of the context the rest of the definition lacks.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage mean the description must do all the work, and it doesn't. Given the sibling tool check_payment, the definition should at least sketch the invoice-then-verify flow, but it leaves the agent guessing about the end-to-end purchase process.

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 none of the three parameters (tier, network, robot_id) has a type description or enum. The phrase 'for a tier' only gestures at one parameter and adds no accepted values or format; network and robot_id are completely unexplained in either schema or 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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Create a crypto invoice') and clarifies the mechanism behind the purchase_access name, so an agent knows it returns an invoice rather than granting access directly. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like check_payment, which are clearly part of the same payment flow.

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 (e.g. must access/tier be valid), and no mention of the obvious alternative or follow-up, check_payment. The agent must infer the entire purchase workflow from the name alone.

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