avanza_paper_stoploss_set

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly discloses the key behavior that no Avanza order is placed and that the tool is safe in read-only mode. It does not elaborate on persistence, cancellation, or side effects of repeated calls, but the most important safety trait is explicit.

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 short, front-loaded, and contains no filler. Both sentences earn their place by stating the core purpose and the critical no-real-order constraint. It is arguably too terse for such a complex parameter set, but as a structural matter it is clean and direct.

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?

For a 16-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, this description is far too minimal. It establishes high-level purpose and safety but leaves essential context unexplained, such as the meaning of strategy_intent values, how trigger/price percentage types work, what 'local' implies for persistence, and what the tool returns.

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 0% and the tool has 16 parameters, yet the description provides no parameter-level guidance. Required fields such as strategy_intent, trigger_value, order_price, and order_price_type are left entirely to the schema, and the description does not explain their meaning, defaults, or relationships.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a local paper stop-loss order.' It clearly distinguishes this from real Avanza orders by stating 'This never places an Avanza order,' which separates it from sibling tools like avanza_stoploss_set and avanza_order_set.

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 provides clear context by positioning the tool as a paper-only, local operation and explicitly notes it is allowed in MCP read-only mode. It does not name alternatives or explicitly list when-not-to-use cases, but the paper/local framing strongly implies the boundary against real order placement.

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