replay_stop

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so reasonably: it labels the operation STATE_MUTATING, explains it exits replay and jumps to the live feed, and notes it closes any active replay session. It stops short of saying what occurs if no replay session is active (no-op vs. error) or what the call returns.

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?

Front-loaded with the outcome, then labeled WHEN TO USE / SIDE EFFECTS / LIMITATIONS blocks, so an agent can scan it quickly. Minor redundancy: the SIDE EFFECTS clause restates the exit-replay behavior already given in the opening sentence.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema state toggle this covers purpose, trigger, mutation status, and the closure of the replay session, which is nearly everything needed to call it. The one real gap is undefined behavior when no replay session is running.

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 takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description contradicts or confuses the empty schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource pair (exit Replay mode, restore live real-time chart feed) that an agent can act on immediately. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling replay tools such as replay_start, replay_step, and replay_trade, which all move forward through a simulation.

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 WHEN TO USE clause gives an explicit trigger: finishing simulation practice to return the chart to live conditions. It does not name any alternative tool or a when-not condition (e.g. what to call instead if you want to inspect the session before ending it), so it falls just short of a 5.

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