read_live_insights

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

With no readOnlyHint or destructiveHint annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the update frequency (every 10 minutes) which is useful, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or safe. No contradictions.

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 consists of two short sentences, front-loading the purpose. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value. Highly concise.

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 there is an output schema, return values are not required. However, the description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., project must have a live algorithm), common usage patterns, or handling of the required start parameter. Insufficient for a tool with nested parameters.

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% (likely due to $ref), and the description adds no parameter information. While the nested schema has descriptions for start, end, and projectId, the tool description itself does not elaborate on their meaning or usage beyond what is in 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 clearly states 'Read out the insights of a live algorithm,' specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'read_live_algorithm' or 'read_backtest_insights' by emphasizing 'live' and 'insights,' but does not explicitly differentiate or mention alternatives.

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 a contextual hint about snapshot freshness ('updates about every 10 minutes') but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, nor any conditions or exclusions. Missing alternatives or scenarios.

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