coinbase_confirm_live

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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses the stub behavior: it records confirmation for audit and never arms or submits live orders, providing complete transparency about its limitations.

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?

Single sentence with zero waste, front-loaded with the key term 'Stubbed' and clear action verbs.

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 is sufficient for a simple stub with one parameter, but it omits any indication of return value or success/error behavior, which could be useful for an agent.

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?

The description adds critical constraint beyond the schema: phrase must be 'CONFIRM_LIVE_STUB_ONLY' and explains the stub's acceptance behavior, fully compensating for any lack of enum or format specification.

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?

Description clearly states it is a stub that records a confirmation phrase for audit but never arms or submits live orders, effectively distinguishing it from real order tools like coinbase_place_order.

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?

Description implies usage only for audit recording when a stub confirmation is needed, but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives. Context from sibling tools suggests real orders go elsewhere.

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