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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that execution is real-mode only, orderbook-driven, limited by max neutral size, sliced, and basis-controlled. It does not cover failure modes or permission requirements, but it reveals the most important behavioral traits for a real-money 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 compact and front-loaded: the core purpose appears first, followed by execution behavior, the real-mode constraint, and a compact parameter list with inline validations. Every sentence earns its place and no filler is present.

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 complex 15-parameter real-money tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, execution model, constraints, and most parameters. It does not describe the return value or failure states, but the provided detail is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool with reasonable confidence.

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?

With only 13% schema description coverage, the description compensates by adding constraints: sizeUsd ≤5000, leverage 1-10, strategy enum values, longExchange default, and a grouped protection parameter list. However, the required 'agent' parameter is absent from the natural-language parameter enumeration, which prevents a 5.

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 action ('Open') and resource ('NEUTRAL hedged position'), clarifies the leg composition (LONG on exchangeA + SHORT on exchangeB, or vice versa), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like close_hedged_position and adjust_hedge via 'Open' and 'Entry'. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives clear usage context: it opens a neutral hedge, executed by the hedge engine strictly from orderbooks, and explicitly states 'REAL mode only'. It does not name sibling alternatives such as close_hedged_position or adjust_hedge, so it stops short of a 5.

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