avanza_fee_estimate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the conservative-assumptions behavior when exact class data is unavailable, but it does not mention side effects, whether it fetches live data, or how the estimate output is structured.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core purpose immediately and the parenthetical adds a useful caution without bloating the 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?

With 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, one sentence is insufficient. The description leaves the agent uninformed about return values, parameter relationships, session/account context, and what 'break-even move' means operationally.

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 only 20% across 10 parameters, and the description does not compensate. It gives no semantics for required fields like account_id, orderbook_id, side, price, or quantity, and does not explain how market, currency, or brokerage_class affect the estimate.

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 states a specific action ('estimate'), a concrete resource ('courtage/FX costs and break-even move'), and a clear context ('planned trade'). It is distinguishable from execution and post-trade attribution tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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?

'For a planned trade' provides a clear use context, and the parenthetical hints at when conservative assumptions apply. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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