get_trade_call

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

Even though readOnlyHint=true already exists, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it reads live exchange APIs, places no orders, has a verified track record, and is on-chain merkle anchored. This is valuable beyond annotations.

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: core output first, scope and alternative next, then safety and verification. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 read-only single-asset tool with fully documented parameters and enums, the description covers output, scope, alternative, and safety. No output schema exists, but the description names the returned verdict, confidence, and market regime, which is sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, and each parameter already has explanatory text, so the baseline is 3. The description only adds the single-asset cardinality constraint and does not describe parameter formats beyond the schema.

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 a specific resource and output: a composite BUY/SELL/HOLD verdict with confidence and market regime for one perpetual contract. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from scan_trade_calls via the 'One asset only' scope, so an agent knows which tool this is.

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?

'One asset only; for a whole-market scan use scan_trade_calls' is an explicit when-not and alternative pairing. The read-only note also reinforces when it is safe to call.

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