Create Trade Intent

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

Annotations carry idempotentHint and destructiveHint; the description confirms idempotency with 'Create or return' and 'idempotent'. It adds the persistence context ('persists the basket and optional previews'). However, it never discloses any destructive behavior that destructiveHint: true implies, and its creation-focused framing could understate the destructive potential. No direct contradiction, but the destructive side is left undisclosed.

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?

Two sentences with the core action front-loaded. The second sentence adds the 'before submission' workflow context. Slightly redundant ('create... trade intent' vs 'persists the basket') but overall tight and efficient.

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 complex tool with 4 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no nested-object documentation, the description is too sparse. It omits the meaning of required 'reason', the behavior of preview_orders, and the workflow relationship to submit_trade_intent. The presence of an output schema helps but does not offset these gaps.

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% for the 4 top-level parameters, so the description carries full responsibility. It hints at 'explicit orders' (orders) and 'optional previews' (preview_orders) but never explains the purpose of 'reason' or 'account_id'. The description does not adequately compensate for the total lack of schema-level parameter documentation.

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 (create/return) with a clear resource (basket-style trade intent). It differentiates from siblings by emphasizing 'basket-style' (vs single-order tools like place_order) and 'before submission' (vs submit_trade_intent). An agent can reliably distinguish this from the large sibling 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?

'Before submission' implies this is the create step preceding submit_trade_intent, and 'basket-style' implies multi-order usage vs single-order alternatives. However, it never names a sibling explicitly nor states when NOT to use this tool versus preview_order_basket or place_order. The usage context is implied, not explicit.

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