prepare_trade

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that it cross-checks live asks against history, flags outliers, returns a whisper, and does not contact anyone. This is useful but does not describe side effects, output format, or any other behavioral nuances. The transparency is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

The description is concise, with the primary purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence adds relevant cross-checking and non-contact behavior. It is structured well and avoids unnecessary detail, though it could separate behavioral notes more clearly.

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 tool has 4 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (not visible), the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to fill parameters, what 'best current listing' means, or what the returned whisper contains. An agent would struggle to call this correctly without additional information.

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?

The input schema has zero description coverage for its 4 parameters (name, league, item_key, max_price), and the description does not explain or define any of them. It mentions 'item' and 'listing' but never maps these to parameters, leaving the agent without any guidance on what values to provide. This is a critical gap.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: pick the best current listing and return a ready whisper. It also mentions cross-checking against history and that it does not contact anyone, which distinguishes it from potential siblings. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or contrast with them, so it's not fully differentiating.

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 implies usage ('before you commit', 'for a human to send') but never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_listings or find_arbitrage. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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