get_trading_guide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether the guide is static reference content or procedural steps, whether it reflects live account state, how large the response is, or whether it requires authentication — gaps that matter for a tool an agent may call before trading.

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 zero filler or repetition. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification for a tool with four closely related siblings.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description is the only place to convey what the guide actually contains, and it does not. For a low-complexity one-parameter retrieval tool the description is minimally viable, but it leaves the agent guessing about guide scope, format, and differentiation from other guide tools.

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% and the single enum parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the three enum values ('spot, perp, or limit') without explaining how choosing one changes the guide's contents. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Clear verb+resource ('Get a complete trading guide') with the enum values spot/perp/limit spelled out. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling guide-like tools such as get_copy_trade_guide, get_component_guide, search_gdex_docs, or explain_workflow, so an agent cannot confidently choose among them from the description alone.

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 states only what the tool returns, with no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives. Sibling tools like search_gdex_docs and explain_workflow plausibly overlap, and the description offers no guidance on which to pick.

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