stock_query_match

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the force_query cache/refresh behavior and the return type ('List of matched trades'), but omits auth requirements, error behavior, and further details about matches.

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 well-structured with a summary, an Args block, and a Returns line. It is concise, but the Args block largely duplicates schema information, and the Returns line is minimal.

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 simple 2-parameter query tool with an output schema, the description provides a basic overview. However, 'matched trades' is vague, and there is no info on pagination, result limits, or edge cases, making it barely sufficient.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for force_query ('True to force refresh from server, False to use cache'), but account_id is only restated as 'Account ID', adding no value beyond the schema title.

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 says 'Query stock trade matches', which is a clear verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from futopt_query_match by specifying 'stock', but doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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. It does not reference sibling tools like stock_query_order or futopt_query_match, leaving usage to be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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