get_started

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses paper mode (simulated fills, play funds, real quotes) and the safety guarantee that nothing can move real money, plus the fee model. It does not cover idempotency (calling again with the same trader_id) or rate limits, leaving minor gaps.

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-loads 'Start here' and the mode switch, with dense but load-bearing detail. The fee parenthetical and guide-contents list are slightly verbose but useful for a first-call tool. 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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must do all the work; it names what the guide contains (trade flow, fees, safety rules, copy-paste prompts) and the safety envelope. Almost complete, with only edge-case behavior (repeat calls, idempotency) unaddressed.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, and the description adds real value beyond the schema: it explains that omitting trader_id provisions a new trader, that the returned id should be persisted, and that it must be passed to every other tool — usage semantics the schema alone does not convey.

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 action (provisions your paper trader) plus what it returns (full integration guide, status with trader_id), and frames itself as the entry point among siblings. An agent can immediately tell this apart from provision_wallet, balance, or swap_* tools.

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?

Explicitly says 'Start here', explains the two calling modes (no trader_id vs. with trader_id), and instructs the agent to persist the trader_id and pass it to every other tool. That is direct when/how guidance with a forward-looking integration rule.

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