liquidate_live_algorithm

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

The description merely states the action without disclosing behavioral traits beyond what the annotations provide. The idempotentHint=true annotation suggests idempotency, but the description does not confirm this or discuss side effects, permissions, or data loss. For a liquidation action, more transparency on impact is expected.

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 (5 words) with no wasted language. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices completeness. Conciseness alone doesn't warrant a perfect score.

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 apparent destructiveness and the presence of an output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details about return values, prerequisites, the difference from similar tools, and the exact effect on the live algorithm.

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 description does not mention the lone parameter 'projectId' or provide any additional meaning beyond the input schema. Although the schema itself has a description for projectId, the tool description adds no value for parameter understanding.

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 resource ('a live algorithm'). However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling 'stop_live_algorithm', which could have overlapping or different behavior. The distinction is unclear.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'stop_live_algorithm' or 'broadcast_live_command'. The description lacks context on prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions.

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