ccxt_private_write

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the description's 'mutating' aligns. It adds context about using a configured account and coverage of private write endpoints, but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like irreversibility of specific operations or error handling. This exceeds the annotation baseline slightly, but not substantially.

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 with no filler. The first sentence states the core action, the second adds scope. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding.

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 is a generic wrapper with no output schema, so description must convey scope. It covers main use cases but doesn't mention that returns vary by method or that some methods might require additional setup like loadMarkets (though that is in schema). The coverage list provides reasonable completeness for a wrapper of this type.

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% with each parameter already described. The description doesn't add meaning beyond the schema; it mentions general categories but doesn't elaborate on how args/params map to specific CCXT methods beyond what schema descriptions already state.

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 uses a specific verb ('Invoke') and resource ('authenticated mutating CCXT method') and clearly distinguishes from siblings like ccxt_private_read and ccxt_public_call by specifying 'write' and listing mutating operations.

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 for authenticated mutating operations and lists covered categories (orders, cancellations, leverage, transfers, withdrawals). It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for read-only or public calls, but the 'mutating' qualifier provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate.

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