crypto_accounting__fair_value_remeasurement

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

No annotations provided, so description must compensate. It fails to disclose what the tool computes (e.g., gain/loss), side effects, or limitations. The mention of US GAAP is insufficient without calculation details.

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 that is concise and front-loaded with context prefix. Could be slightly expanded to include output or examples without losing conciseness.

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?

With no output schema and minimal parameter info, the description is insufficient. Does not explain the return value, calculation steps, or how to apply the result in accounting.

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?

Parameter names 'carrying' and 'fair_value' are somewhat self-explanatory, and description implies they are inputs for fair value measurement. However, schema coverage is 0%, and description does not explicitly define each parameter's meaning or units.

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 measures fair value under US GAAP ASU 2023-08, specifying the accounting standard. However, it does not explicitly state that it computes a remeasurement gain or loss, which would be more precise.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like cost_less_impairment or realized_gain_fifo. It only states the accounting standard, not context for selection.

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