get_trading_guide

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the word 'complete' and the three trading types, but does not say what the guide contains (steps, code samples, required accounts) or how it is shaped. Marginal value beyond structured data.

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?

One short sentence with no filler and the resource named upfront. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of detail rather than being a model of front-loaded information.

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 simple one-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage this is close to adequate. However, with no output schema, the agent still does not know what a 'guide' returns — markdown text, ordered steps, code — which matters for deciding whether to call it during a trading workflow.

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% with a single fully-documented enum parameter, so the schema carries the burden. The description merely repeats 'spot, perp, or limit' without adding guidance on which type to choose or how the guide differs per type. 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 and resource ('Get a complete trading guide') and scopes it to spot, perp, or limit via the enum. It is clearly a documentation/instruction tool, distinct from execution siblings like execute_spot or limit_buy. It does not, however, differentiate itself from other guide-type siblings such as get_component_guide or get_copy_trade_guide.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this should be called before trading to learn the flow, and the type enum hints at picking a modality. There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no statement of when a different guide or docs tool is the better choice.

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