create_deal

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, indicating a write operation that may be destructive. The description confirms creation of a new deal, aligning with annotations and adding no contradiction. It also clarifies the two distinct creation pathways, adding behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the main purpose; the second explains the two modes. Every phrase earns its place, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity of 13 parameters and two distinct creation paths, the description provides a high-level overview that covers the main modes. It does not detail all parameter interactions or return values, but the schema fills those gaps. A mention of any output or next steps could improve completeness, but overall it's adequate.

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?

While schema coverage is 100% with descriptions, the tool description adds significant meaning by grouping parameters by deal type (dca/combo requires botId, terminal requires exchangeUUID, etc.). This provides context that the schema alone does not offer, such as explaining that settings is a passthrough for terminal.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: creating a new deal. It distinguishes between two types (dca/combo from existing bot, terminal standalone), providing a clear verb+resource distinction that differentiates it from sibling tools like update_deal or manage_deal.

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 provides clear context for when to use each parameter set: for dca/combo vs terminal. It implicitly guides the agent on required parameters based on deal type, but does not explicitly exclude other use cases or mention alternatives.

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