finance_investment_trading_agent

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

Annotations already flag destructive, non-idempotent, and non-read-only behavior. The description adds useful context about execution scope (JWT, tenant, company) and the dispatching mechanism. It does not elaborate on potential side effects, but the annotation coverage lowers the bar and this description is not misleading.

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 compact, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and organized with a clean Args list. Every line contributes useful information without fluff or repetition.

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 generic wrapper around a possibly destructive investment trading agent, the description omits when to use this tool instead of the many highly specific finance_investment_* siblings. It also does not clarify the intended scope of the agent action or its side effects. The presence of an output schema covers return-value expectations, but selection context is lacking.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by describing 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string of structured inputs. However, it does not explain what structured inputs the agent action expects or how the JSON should be shaped, leaving meaningful ambiguity.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Run the finance domain agent action `investment_trading_agent`.' It also provides context that it routes through the domain-agent dispatcher. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the many finance_investment_* sibling tools, so an agent would have to infer that this is the generic agent entry point.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as finance_investment_trading_signal, finance_chat, or dispatch_domain_agent. The description states what the tool does but provides no conditions or exclusions to help an agent select it.

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