check_result

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait—blocking until expiration passes—and states that it returns win/loss and profit. However, it does not mention error handling (e.g., invalid request_id), potential timeouts, or whether the operation is read-only. The blocking behavior is important but could be elaborated.

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 concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second gives the practical usage. Every sentence earns its place with no unnecessary filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is quite complete. It covers the action, the parameter, and the blocking behavior, and even mentions the output type. However, it could be more explicit about potential risks (e.g., indefinite blocking if the trade never closes) or the structure of the returned result.

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?

The schema has one parameter, request_id, with no description. The description compensates by explaining its origin and meaning: 'Pass the request_id returned by place_trade.' This gives the agent the necessary context to supply the correct value, going beyond the bare 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 a specific action ('wait for a placed trade to close') and the resource ('trade') plus the output ('win/loss and profit'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like place_trade (placing) and open_positions (current positions) by focusing on awaiting closure and returning results.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: after placing a trade, by passing the request_id returned from place_trade. It also explains the blocking behavior, implying it is for checking outcomes, not for listing or history. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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