create_live_command

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

Annotations provide only a title, no readOnlyHint or destructiveHint. The description does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, or the impact on the live algorithm. As a mutation tool, the description should warn about potential risks.

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, concise sentence. It is front-loaded but could include more specific information without becoming verbose.

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 nested input schema and siblings with similar purposes, the description is too minimal. It lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., algorithm must be live) and does not help distinguish from broadcast_live_command.

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?

The top-level parameter 'model' has no description in the schema (0% coverage), and the tool description does not elaborate on required fields (projectId, command). Although nested definitions provide descriptions, the tool description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 'Send a command to a live trading algorithm' clearly states the action (send) and the resource (command to a live algorithm). It distinguishes from sibling tools like broadcast_live_command which likely targets multiple algorithms, but lacks explicit differentiation.

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 such as broadcast_live_command or stop_live_algorithm. No prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.

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