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

The description discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations: it clarifies that it is 'mostly READ (plan/validate)' and 'WRITE/destructive only when action=execute,' which aligns with the annotations but adds essential nuance about when destructive behavior occurs. It also details authentication methods, billing, cost, and rate limits, providing comprehensive behavioral transparency.

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 structured with labeled sections (Purpose, Behavior, Auth, Cost, etc.) and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it is repetitive: the purpose statement is essentially duplicated at the beginning and again under 'Purpose.' This redundancy prevents a perfect score.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (auth, billing, rate limits, destructive potential, execution risks), the description covers all relevant context: what it returns, when to use plan vs execute, cost implications, authentication methods, and rate limits. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but it does so anyway, making it highly complete.

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 input schema already provides full descriptions for all three parameters (idea, risk_pct, __x_payment), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds minimal parameter-specific semantics, only mentioning 'action=execute' and 'confirm_live' as potential extra parameters not in the schema, but does not enhance the understanding of the existing parameters beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Takes natural language or structured trade ideas, fetches live market context, and generates fully executable order parameters with AI reasoning.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cc.asset_scanner or cc.twap_executor, which are data fetchers or execution tools without the AI planning aspect.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (for trade idea generation) and gives explicit directives like 'Prefer action=plan first' and 'For live money require explicit human confirmation (confirm_live / action=execute).' However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for similar tasks, only implying them through the context of siblings.

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