QuantConnect

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true, indicating safe retries, but the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action. It doesn't clarify what 'liquidate' entails (e.g., closing positions, stopping execution) or mention any side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs. With annotations covering idempotency, the description adds some value but is limited in detail.

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 concise with a single sentence that directly states the tool's action. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it efficient to parse, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions like parameter semantics.

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 tool's complexity (a destructive operation on live algorithms) and low schema coverage (0%), the description is inadequate. It lacks details on parameters, behavioral implications, and usage context. While an output schema exists, the description doesn't compensate for the missing information, making it incomplete for safe and effective use.

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%, and the description provides no information about parameters. The input schema defines a 'projectId' parameter, but the description doesn't explain what this is or how it relates to liquidating an algorithm. This leaves a significant gap in understanding how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 clearly states the action ('Liquidate and stop') and the target ('a live algorithm'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'stop_live_algorithm', which might have overlapping functionality, leaving some ambiguity about when to use one versus the other.

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 alternatives like 'stop_live_algorithm' or other sibling tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the algorithm must be running or in a specific state, and offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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