Prop Firm Rules (FloorGuard)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing what is returned (binding limit, breach flags) and that the model matches the FloorGuard calculator, but it omits any auth or rate-limit context. Adequate but not rich.

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 tight sentences that front-load the tool's output and scope. Every clause carries information; only the trailing API cross-reference is borderline dispensable.

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 exists, but the description enumerates the key return elements (remaining room, binding limit, breach flags), which is the essential return information. Given the fully documented schema and safety annotations, this is close to complete for a stateless read tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all nine parameters with defaults and units. The description adds nothing parameter-level beyond 'same inputs as GET /api/v1/check', so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific computed resource: 'remaining daily-loss and max-drawdown room in dollars for an account', plus the binding limit and breach flags. This is clearly distinct from get_rules and list_firms, though it never names those siblings to reinforce the distinction.

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?

Usage is only implied by the tool's purpose (checking drawdown headroom); there is no explicit 'use this when X, use get_rules when Y' routing. The cross-reference to GET /api/v1/check gives some orientation but no when/when-not guidance.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: it enumerates exactly what data the response contains and confirms parity with the underlying REST endpoint, which reassures an agent about fidelity. It stops short of noting auth or rate limits, but for a static rule lookup that is minor.

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?

Front-loaded with the core payload description, then the REST equivalence. The parenthetical field list is dense but every item is informative about the return contents. No filler sentences.

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, the description usefully compensates by listing the returned fields, and the REST mapping gives a precise mental model of the call. A one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage is adequately served; only the absence of sibling routing guidance keeps it from a 5.

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 100% and the single parameter is an enum with an inline hint ('Program id from list_firms'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond restating the program selector in the REST URL form, so baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb (get) and resource (rules) scoped to one program, and enumerates the payload contents (daily-loss, max-drawdown, static/trailing mode, lock, reset time, notes, source links, copy-trading policy). The REST endpoint mapping (GET /api/v1/rules?program=<id>) pins the semantics exactly. Clearly distinguishable from check_drawdown and list_firms.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: it is a read for a single program's rule set, and the schema note 'Program id from list_firms' hints at the workflow. However, it never says when to prefer this over check_drawdown or when list_firms should be called first, and offers no exclusions.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond them by disclosing the payload contents (program ids, account sizes, verified flags, last-verified dates) and confirming it mirrors GET /api/v1/firms, which is important since no output schema exists. No pagination, caching or rate-limit behavior is mentioned.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the returned fields, then the endpoint equivalence. Every clause carries information and there is no filler.

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, fully annotated read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the one thing structured fields cannot: what the response contains. Adding any more (pagination, ordering, freshness guarantees) would be marginal, but the absence of any output contract leaves a small 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-parameter tool applies. Schema description coverage is 100% and additionalProperties is false, so no compensating text is required.

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 specific verb (List) and a precise resource (supported prop firms and their programs), then enumerates the fields returned, so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings check_drawdown or get_rules, but those cover different resources, so disambiguation is implicit rather than stated.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. Usage is only implied by the resource being listed: an agent can infer it is the lookup for firm/program metadata, but nothing tells it whether check_drawdown or get_rules should be consulted first.

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