second_opinion

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool is deterministic, that it analyzes the current chart and order book, and that it returns a verdict with supporting numbers. The phrase 'pre-trade check' and 'before any order tool' strongly imply no order is placed, though it could have stated the read-only nature more explicitly.

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 dense sentences front-load the core purpose, then describe the computed metrics and output verdict, ending with a clear call-to-action. No redundant phrasing or filler.

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 explains what the tool computes and what it returns, which is important because there is no output schema. It covers the main workflow context and the as_of replay case is handled in the schema. It stops short of describing edge cases like low sample sizes or exact verdict thresholds, but the returned numbers are meant to inform the agent's decision.

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 83%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds context about how thesis is checked and that costs come from the live order book and fees, but it does not add detail that the schema lacks for individual parameters.

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 function: a deterministic pre-trade check that classifies chart setups, computes historical base rates and round-trip costs, and returns an APPROVE/CAUTION/VETO verdict. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools base_rates and cost_estimate, which only provide individual pieces.

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 instruction 'Call this before any order tool' gives explicit placement in the agent's workflow, and the pre-trade framing makes the intended context clear. It does not spell out when to prefer the sibling tools instead, but the integration role is evident.

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