cap_trade_preview_working_order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states no side effects and returns preview_id, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or behavior under invalid inputs. Basic transparency is present but incomplete.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. First sentence defines purpose and safety, second adds type constraint and return value. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 14 parameters (5 required) and no schema descriptions, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain key parameters, return format, or validation rules. The output schema exists but its content is not provided, leaving a significant gap.

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%, and the description only clarifies that 'type' is LIMIT or STOP. It does not explain the other 13 parameters, including required ones like epic, direction, level, and size. The description adds minimal value for parameter understanding.

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 'Preview' and the resource 'working order', explicitly noting no side effects. It distinguishes from siblings like cap_trade_execute_working_order by being a preview action.

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 'NO SIDE EFFECTS' statement suggests safe usage for testing, and the name implies use before executing. However, it does not explicitly guide when not to use or mention alternatives beyond the implied distinction.

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