pre_trade_check

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

With no annotations, the description adds 'Read/check only', disclosing non-destructive behavior. But it lacks details on side effects, authorization, rate limits, or what exactly is checked. Adequate but minimal.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by behavioral context. No wasted words.

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 tool has 4 parameters (1 required), nested objects, no output schema, and many siblings, the description lacks essential details about input structure, return value, and relationship to similar validation tools. Incomplete for effective use.

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 0% and the description provides zero information about the four parameters (date, request, accountSeq, delegatedAuthority). This is a critical gap.

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 indicates the tool runs pre-execution safety/reality checks (verb) for a candidate order (resource). It distinguishes itself as separate and not required in the order_execute hot path, but doesn't differentiate from siblings like order_validate or order_preview.

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 before order execution and states it's optional ('not required in order_execute hot path'). However, it provides no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives among sibling tools like order_validate.

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