paper_step

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

Discloses that it processes only closed candles, ignores in-progress ones, catches up after downtime, and manages positions with stop-first bracket semantics. Also explains when new entries are taken (signal, regime gate, halt, kill switch). Annotations indicate non-readonly and non-destructive, consistent with description.

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?

Concise at 5 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Each sentence adds meaningful detail without redundancy.

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's complexity (advancing a paper trader with multiple conditions and state), the description covers behavior, scheduling, safety, and return value sufficiently. No output schema exists but description mentions events and snapshot.

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?

No parameters exist, so baseline score of 4 applies. The description fully explains behavior without needing to document parameters.

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?

Clearly states it advances the paper trader one tick against live Binance data, processes closed candles, and manages positions. Distinguishes itself from sibling paper tools like paper_reset and paper_status by its step-specific action.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call this hourly' or run the daemon, and mentions it's safe to call any time. Lacks explicit alternatives but the context and recommendation provide clear usage guidance.

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