Trading Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the detail that it reads from control.json, which is useful but minimal. It does not describe the response content or any other behavioral traits, though the output schema presumably covers that.

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 a single sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word earns its place. Excellent conciseness.

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 tool with an output schema, the description is adequate but could be more specific about what 'trading-control state' includes. It does not clarify whether it covers trading enabled/disabled, circuit breakers, or other control flags. The output schema likely fills this gap, but the description alone is slightly vague.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema is trivial. The description does not need to explain parameters. With no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate because the tool cannot have parameter ambiguities.

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 states a specific verb (inspect) and resource (trading-control state) and even names the source (control.json). It distinguishes from siblings like get_schedule_status by focusing on trading-control state, but does not elaborate on what that state encompasses, leaving some ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling status tools (e.g., get_schedule_status, get_order_status). It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context from the name alone.

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