create_live_algorithm

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

The description provides no behavioral details beyond the name. Annotations indicate non-destructive, but the description does not clarify that creating a live algorithm requires a complex request object with many fields, or that it initiates a live deployment.

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 extremely short but fails to provide useful information. It does not earn its place as it adds no value beyond the tool name.

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?

Given the complexity of the input schema (over 50 nested definitions) and the absence of parameter descriptions, the description is completely inadequate. It should at least mention key required subfields like projectId, compileId, nodeId, and brokerage.

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 coverage is 0% and the description adds no information about the single required 'model' parameter. It does not explain that this parameter is a complex object with many nested required fields, leaving the agent with no guidance.

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 'Create a live algorithm' is a tautology, restating the tool name without adding any specificity. It fails to differentiate from sibling tools like create_backtest or create_compile.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites or context, such as needing a project, compile, and node before creating a live algorithm.

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