risk_transaction-cost

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the model covers commission, spread, and market impact, and specifies the return structure (total cost, breakdown, percentage), which enhances transparency beyond annotations.

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?

Three concise sentences: definition, usage, return. All information is front-loaded and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

With 9 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a high-level overview and return format. It omits detailed guidance on advanced parameters like adv or participation_rate, but schema descriptions cover those. Adequate for the complexity level.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds high-level guidance ('Provide trade size, price, spread, and commission structure'), helping map real-world concepts to parameters, and clarifies the model's components.

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 it estimates total transaction costs from commission, spread, and market impact. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like risk_position-size or risk_kelly.

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 explicitly says 'Use when estimating total transaction costs...' providing clear guidance. It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but given the tool's specific focus, this is a minor gap.

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