Set futures stop-loss / take-profit

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

The description adds significant context beyond annotations: it explains the side-aware behavior, that triggers fire on a per-minute worker, that the full position is closed at mark, and that it requires the trade:futures scope. It also discloses that this is for paper trading with virtual funds and not financial advice. No contradiction with 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?

The description is lengthy (approx. 160 words) and includes several extraneous details about execution costs, fees, and disclaimers. While the main purpose is front-loaded, the length reduces conciseness. The structure is logical but could be trimmed.

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 complexity of the tool (4 parameters, nested objects, output schema), the description covers usage, side-awareness, paper trading constraints, execution model, and references output schema (executionModel). It is complete enough for effective 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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds important meaning: 'null clears it, an omitted field is unchanged' and explains side-aware conditions for stopLossPrice and takeProfitPrice. This provides clarity beyond the schema descriptions.

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 verb 'set or clear' and the resource 'stop-loss / take-profit triggers on an OPEN mock futures position'. It distinguishes from siblings like close_futures_position and open_futures_position by specifying that it only modifies triggers on an already open position.

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 says when to use: on an open mock futures position, and clarifies that it is for paper trading only. It also mentions required scope (trade:futures) and provides side-aware conditions. While it doesn't explicitly list alternatives, the sibling tools are contextually distinct enough.

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