trade_evaluate

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

The description discloses the return values: 'position size, costs, signals, regime, Kelly sizing, and FAVORABLE/CAUTION/UNFAVORABLE verdict.' This adds context beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) about the combined nature and verdict output. 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 is relatively concise with two sentences and a few additional lines. It front-loads the main purpose and then details. Minor redundancy ('Complete trade evaluation' repeated) but overall well-structured.

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 complexity (10 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the tool's purpose, inputs, outputs, and pricing. It doesn't explain the verdict or signal details, but provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions providing 'entry/stop/target prices, account size, and recent price history' which maps to required parameters, but adds little meaning beyond the schema descriptions.

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 tool's purpose: 'Complete trade evaluation: sizing, risk/reward, Kelly, costs, regime, signals. Replaces 5 individual calls.' It specifies the verb 'evaluate' and the resource 'trade', and distinguishes from siblings by highlighting it as a combined alternative.

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 states when to use: 'Use when evaluating whether to take a specific trade.' It also provides input requirements and notes 'PAID ONLY — no free tier.' While it mentions replacing 5 individual calls, it doesn't explicitly list those alternatives or specify when not to use.

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