build_trade_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it calculates values but does not disclose whether it is read-only, idempotent, or has any side effects. For a calculation tool, it should clarify that it does not modify data.

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 a single sentence listing many items, which is efficient. However, it could benefit from structured formatting (e.g., bullet points) for readability, but overall it is concise and front-loaded.

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?

The tool has 6 required parameters and no output schema. The description lists outputs but does not explain the return format, types, or structure. For a complex calculation tool, this is insufficient for the agent to understand the complete behavior.

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 baseline is 3. The description lists outputs but does not add semantic meaning to the parameters (e.g., how prevLow and prevHigh relate to action). It relies entirely on the schema for parameter understanding.

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 calculates trade entry details, listing specific outputs (Quantity, Stop-Loss, Targets, etc.). It uses a specific verb ('Calculates') and identifies the resource ('trade entry details'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'validate_trade_setup' and 'analyze_chart' by focusing on numerical calculations.

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 implies usage when numerical trade plan outputs are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., validate_trade_setup). No exclusion criteria or alternative suggestions are provided, but the context is clear.

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