trade_door

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, mutating, requires authentication, has side effects, or returns data. The phrase 'Flat no-KYC' suggests a fee structure but not behavior.

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 extremely brief but under-specified. It is a single fragment that omits essential verb and context, so it is not concise — it is incomplete. The limited words do not earn their place because they fail to convey meaning.

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 absence of an output schema and the unclear purpose, the description is insufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does or what it returns. The sibling names suggest a domain but the tool's role remains opaque.

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 schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. Per the baseline for no-parameter tools, no compensation is needed. The description does not introduce any parameter-related ambiguity.

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 'trade instructions' but lacks a clear verb — it doesn't say whether the tool retrieves, submits, or processes trades. The terms 'USDC/SOC, BTC/SOC' hint at currency pairs but offer no actionable specificity. It distinguishes itself from siblings (verify_settlement, oracle, etc.) only by name, not by function.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings. There is no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives. An agent has no basis to select this over verify_settlement or oracle.

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