trading_status

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that the tool reads local configuration and makes no network request, so it works without a trading session. It also explains the semantics of policy.reason, policy.autoConfirmIgnored, policy.elicitation modes, and the in-memory nature of rememberGrant — all valuable behavioral context not captured by annotations.

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 long but densely packed with essential operational details and has a logical structure: core purpose first, then critical precondition, then field-by-field semantics. No sentence is wasted, though the length is higher than average.

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, the description does a good job explaining the key response components and their meaning for the agent's decision-making. It omits a full JSON shape or type information, but covers the semantically important parts needed to use the tool correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing to document. The description instead documents the response fields that an agent will consume, which is the appropriate compensation under this condition.

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 first sentence states exactly what the tool reports: whether the server may place an order now and, if not, why. This is a specific verb-plus-resource definition that clearly distinguishes trading_status from generic siblings like status or market_session.

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 gives strong, explicit usage context: 'Read it before offering to trade anything' and explains that trading is off by default and cannot be enabled by the server or any tool argument. It does not name a specific alternative tool to use instead, but it clearly communicates when this check is required.

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