analyze_futures_strategy

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

Adds context beyond the annotations: a tier gate (pioneer_plus_or_x402), the endpoint/authority paths, the shape of the returned strategy object, and the fact that venue relationship verification fails closed. That fails-closed guarantee is the kind of behavioral detail annotations cannot express.

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?

Three tight sentences with the capability/tier/endpoint metadata front-loaded and the critical wallet-addressing rule immediately following. The API and authority path strings are mild clutter for an agent but do convey where the capability lives.

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?

With 10 parameters, a nested proof object, and no output schema, the description covers the return shape and the authorization model adequately, but leaves most parameter semantics undocumented. An agent could call it with the two required fields but would be guessing at riskMultiplier and executionMode.

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% across 10 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It clarifies only the agentAddress vs accountAddress distinction and equity-based sizing; grantId, sessionId, sessionToken, executionMode, idempotencyKey, riskMultiplier, and executionTrialProof remain unexplained in both schema and description.

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 concrete action and result: it returns a strategy object with confidence, regime, and simulation, for a given coin. Calls itself the 'Primary research tool', which loosely separates it from execution siblings like prepare_perp_order or execute_perp_order, but never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

'Primary research tool' implies this is the analysis step taken before sizing or trading, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use condition is given. The one real usage instruction is the delegated-wallet setup rule (agentAddress = signer, accountAddress = master/subaccount), which is helpful but narrow.

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