set_crypto_position

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

The description discloses key behaviors: it fetches external quotes, stores a snapshot, flows into portfolio summary and allocation drift, and that quantity=0 removes the holding (idempotent). It also notes re-running refreshes the value and that no cost basis/P&L is recorded. The term 'Outbound-gated' is a hint but not fully explained, and rate limits are not covered.

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 information-dense but not overly verbose. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds necessary behavioral details. Each sentence adds value, and the structure flows logically from purpose to side effects to limitations.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains what happens on invocation: it stores a snapshot, updates downstream summaries, and handles removal. It covers the essential context an agent needs to decide and execute the tool, though it does not mention return values or error scenarios, which are minor gaps.

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 descriptions already cover the basics (ticker symbol, quantity amount). The tool description adds meaning by specifying that ticker is a crypto symbol in the context of BRL, and crucially explains that quantity=0 removes the holding, which is not in the schema. This goes beyond the schema's baseline coverage.

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 verb 'Manually track' and the resource 'crypto holding', and explains the mechanism (fetches BRL quote, stores snapshot). It distinguishes itself from the sibling get_crypto_quote by describing the position-setting action rather than just quote retrieval.

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?

While the description implies when to use it (to record a crypto position), it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_crypto_quote or state 'use this when...'. The downstream effects are mentioned, but there is no direct usage guidance beyond the functional description.

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