build_trade_payload

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints that the payload is 'encrypted' and 'managed-custody', but never discloses whether the tool is a pure local computation or makes network calls, whether it requires prior session/auth setup (implied by sessionPrivateKey and apiKey but unstated), or what happens to credentials.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action and output are stated immediately. It is arguably too terse for a 7-parameter all-required tool, but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a tool with 7 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should at minimum explain what the produced payload is consumed by and whether the call has side effects. Neither is addressed, so an agent cannot fully reason about safe or correct invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters and their meanings. The description adds no format, ordering, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Build') and a specific resource ('encrypted managed-custody trade computedData payload from raw credentials'), which is more than a tautology. However, it does not differentiate itself from the structurally similar sibling build_sign_in_payload, nor from execution siblings like managed_purchase/managed_sell, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as managed_purchase, managed_sell, or build_sign_in_payload. The description gives no signal about where this fits in a managed-custody trade flow.

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