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 no behavioral context beyond the basic action. It doesn't explain effects (e.g., whether stopping halts trading immediately, retains data), permissions needed, or rate limits. With annotations covering idempotency, the description adds minimal value but lacks depth for a mutation tool.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently states the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 mutation tool with idempotent annotations but no other behavioral hints, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema (unseen), the description is inadequate. It lacks details on parameters, effects, error conditions, or return values, failing to provide a complete picture 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%, with one parameter ('projectId') undocumented in the schema. The description provides no parameter information, failing to compensate for the coverage gap. It doesn't explain what 'projectId' refers to (e.g., ID of a running algorithm) or its format, leaving semantics unclear.

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 'Stop a live algorithm' clearly states the action (stop) and target (live algorithm), but it's vague about what 'stop' entails (e.g., halting trading, terminating execution) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'liquidate_live_algorithm' or 'broadcast_live_command'. It provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'liquidate_live_algorithm' for closing positions vs. stopping execution), prerequisites (e.g., requires a live algorithm to be running), or exclusions. It merely states what it does without context for selection.

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