egx_trade_plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds no extra behavioral context. It does not contradict annotations but also does not disclose whether the plan is based on live data or historical patterns.

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 two main sentences followed by a clean args list. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or unnecessary text.

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 no output schema and only two parameters, the description is adequate but lacks detail on what a 'full trade plan' includes (e.g., entries, exits, risk management). It could be more complete for agents needing return format expectations.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides example values for symbol ('COMI', 'TMGH', 'FWRY') and lists timeframe options (5m, 15m, 1h, 4h, 1D, 1W, 1M) with default 1D, adding significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 generates a full trade plan for a specific EGX stock, using a specific verb 'Generate' and resource 'full trade plan'. It distinguishes from siblings like multi_timeframe_analysis which provide analysis but not a complete plan.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as multi_agent_analysis or multi_timeframe_analysis. The description does not specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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