record_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the underlying commands for each mode (CLI vs Python script) and the result format. It does not mention side effects like overwriting existing files, but it is transparent about the general behavior.

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 concise with about five sentences, each serving a clear purpose: first states the tool's function, then explains modes, then gives usage examples, and ends with the result. No unnecessary 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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides adequate context for an agent to understand when and how to use the tool. It covers the high-level workflow and result usage. It lacks details on error handling or permissions, but is fairly complete for its complexity.

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%, so each parameter already has a description. The description adds value by grouping parameters under modes and explaining the purpose of each mode, but it does not significantly enrich individual parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 tool captures market data into a .floxlog tape, distinguishes between live and historical modes, and gives concrete examples of user requests that trigger it. It is easily differentiated from sibling tools which cover orders, strategies, etc.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool with examples like 'record some BTC data' or 'pull a month of klines'. It does not explicitly mention when not to use, but the context is clear and the tool's purpose is well-defined relative to siblings.

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