request_trade_confirmation

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true. The description adds that it shows a form and requires approval, which aligns with the destructive hint. No contradiction, but could elaborate on the confirmation flow and side effects beyond 'destructive'.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. Purpose is front-loaded. Every word adds value. Highly concise.

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 parameters, 3 required, and no output schema. Description omits key details: what happens after approval, the form layout, return value, and required fields. Incomplete for a tool handling critical trade actions.

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?

Only 17% of parameters have schema descriptions. The description does not explain any parameter beyond 'trade details'. With low coverage, the description should compensate but fails to provide meaning for the six parameters (symbol, side, quantity, etc.).

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?

Clearly states the tool requests human confirmation for high-value/destructive trades and shows a form. Among many trade-related siblings, it distinguishes itself by explicitly mentioning confirmation gating. However, it could more precisely contrast with similar confirmation tools like approve_intent.

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?

Provides context (use before high-value/destructive trades) and states execution is gated on approval. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives. Usage is implied but not comprehensive.

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