set_trigger

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 that the current live price becomes the baseline, that the trigger fires exactly ONCE, that execution is bounded by the trigger's own caps under the standing approval created here, and that BLOCKED tokens cannot be armed. It leaves failure handling and reversibility (cancel_trigger) implicit.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the worked example and then the mechanics. No filler, though the double-quote-heavy opening is slightly dense.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 8 parameters, the behavioral picture is good but incomplete: the return value (e.g., a trigger id), what happens on validation failure, and how to inspect or cancel the armed trigger are not mentioned.

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 50%. The description adds genuine meaning by mapping plain language to sell_pct and price_up_pct values ('50 = sell half', '100 = doubles'), but the other undocumented parameters (trader_id, chain, stable_symbol, stable_decimals) get no explanation.

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 ('Arm') and resource ('standing strategy' / trigger) and distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_triggers, cancel_trigger, and check_triggers by describing one-shot arming behavior. The plain-language example makes the effect immediately concrete.

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 through the example and the constraints (one-shot firing, needs standing approval from this call, blocked tokens rejected), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance — nothing routes the agent to cancel_trigger, list_triggers, or pause_trading.

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