run_marketplace_autopilot

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

Annotations indicate idempotent, not read-only, not destructive. The description adds valuable context: it triggers Onyx ingest and Slack notification, stages marketplace listings, and uses no synthetic data. No contradiction with annotations, and it extends beyond them.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and stages. Each subsequent sentence adds important detail (triggers, constraint). Highly efficient.

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 description covers the pipeline flow and constraints but omits what the tool returns (e.g., status, listing IDs). No output schema exists to fill this gap. For a complex pipeline, return information is important for agents to act on results.

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 3. The description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining the pipeline stages (e.g., 'Scans recent strategy research, runs tick backtests') and the constraint 'No synthetic data — real tick engines only', which enriches 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 runs an autonomous marketplace pipeline with explicit stages (Research→Backtest→MCPT Validate→Stage). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like run_backtest and run_mcpt_pipeline by describing the full pipeline and noting 'No synthetic data — real tick engines only'.

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 the tool is for running the full pipeline but does not explicitly state when to use it over siblings (e.g., run_backtest for just backtesting, run_mcpt_pipeline for a different pipeline). No exclusions or alternatives are provided, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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