list_live_algorithms

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

Annotations only provide a title; no readOnlyHint or destructiveHint is present. The description implies a read operation (list) but does not explicitly confirm safety, rate limits, or side effects. Given the lack of annotation support, the description should provide more behavioral context.

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, focused sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler. While efficient, it could be slightly expanded to include a note about optional filters without losing conciseness.

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?

For a simple list tool with two optional filters and an output schema, the description provides the core purpose. However, it omits details like pagination behavior, ordering, or the fact that it is read-only. The presence of an output schema mitigates some return-value documentation burden, but gaps remain.

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 input schema includes detailed descriptions for 'projectId' and 'status' parameters within the $defs, but the top-level description of the input schema is missing (coverage 0%). The tool description adds no parameter information beyond the schema. Since the schema already documents parameters well, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'List all your past and current live trading deployments' clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'live trading deployments'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'read_live_algorithm' which retrieves a single deployment, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings.

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. The description does not mention when not to use it, nor does it reference sibling tools such as 'read_live_algorithm' for specific deployments or 'list_backtests' for backtest data.

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