replay_trade

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares STATE_MUTATING, explains that it updates a simulated paper-trading position, and states the replay-mode precondition. It stops short of describing failure behavior (e.g. what happens if replay is not active) or what is returned.

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 purpose sentence followed by clearly labeled WHEN TO USE, SIDE EFFECTS, and LIMITATIONS sections. Every sentence earns its place with zero filler.

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 one-parameter, annotation-free mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, mutation semantics, and precondition. The only gap is the absence of any indication of the result of a successful or failed trade.

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 100%, so the single 'action' parameter is already documented with its buy/sell/close values. The description repeats those values but adds no syntax, constraints, or defaults beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (execute), resource (simulated trade action), and scope (replay mode), plus the concrete actions buy/sell/close. It implicitly separates itself from replay_start/replay_step/replay_status siblings through the 'trade action in replay mode' framing, though it never names an 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?

The 'WHEN TO USE' line gives a clear triggering context ('taking practice trades against historical bar replay data'). The LIMITATIONS line adds a precondition (replay mode must be active), but no explicit when-not or alternatives are offered.

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