recommend_delta_hedge

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered, and the description adds two things beyond that: the paid/tier gate ('paid_ready; tier: pioneer_plus') and the explicit 'produces a handoff only' contract. It does not describe what the handoff payload contains or any rate/quota behavior, so it is strong but not complete.

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 core is two efficient sentences, but the leading bracketed metadata block (capability, tier, API path, authority path) crowds the front-load position with operational trivia before the agent learns what the tool does. The remainder earns its place; the prefix mostly does not.

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 no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, an agent is left not knowing what the 'handoff' actually returns, how to size or interpret spotExposure entries, or what marketConditions accepts. For a paid-tier tool with four parameters including an untyped free-form object, the description should carry far more of the load.

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 four parameters. The description mentions 'spot farming exposure', which loosely maps to spotExposure, but says nothing about riskPreference, volatilityRegime, or the completely untyped marketConditions parameter. The nested beta/confidence/notionalUsd fields go entirely unexplained, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource: 'Recommend short-perp hedge notionals for spot farming exposure.' It also distinguishes an advisory recommendation from the execution siblings (execute_perp_order, prepare_perp_order) by stating it produces a handoff only. It stops short of naming a specific sibling, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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 phrase 'Produces a handoff only; it does not execute' clearly marks the boundary between this tool and execution tools, which is implied usage guidance. However, it never says when an agent should prefer this over calculate_position_size, analyze_futures_strategy, or scan_funding_rates — closely adjacent siblings in the list. The when-not is implicit rather than stated.

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