upvest_anomaly_analyzer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Auto-triages' is ambiguous about whether it only classifies/diagnoses or also mutates state or triggers remediation, and it discloses nothing about permissions, side effects, or rate limits. For an unannotated tool with an ambiguous mutating-sounding verb, this is a significant gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though arguably terse given the tool's ambiguity rather than genuinely complete.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what triage produces (a classification, a recommendation, a mutation) and any return behavior. It instead stops at the one-line summary, leaving the agent unable to predict the outcome of a call.

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% and all three parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or example detail beyond the schema's own parameter 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?

States a specific verb ('auto-triages') plus the resource categories it acts on (webhook delivery anomalies, out-of-order state transitions, execution failure codes). The purpose is clear and clearly distinct from siblings like upvest_simulate_order and upvest_signature_generator, though it never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance: no indication of when to reach for this tool versus simulate_order or signature_generator, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent is left to infer the triggering context entirely.

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