HTX Preview Trade

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it 'validates' and produces a 'normalized dry-run request,' which implies no order placement. It does not disclose what happens on validation failure or what 'normalized' means in practice, and 'dry-run' might be an ambiguous term for some agents.

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 a single compact sentence with the core verb and object front-loaded: 'Build a normalized dry-run request.' There is no redundancy, filler, or repetition of the tool name, and every phrase contributes meaning.

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?

This is a complex trading-intent tool with a nested 15-field input and a large sibling group. The description does not explain how it relates to htx_validate_trade_intent, whether it is safe to call before placing a real order, or what constitutes a successful dry-run output. The output schema may cover return values, but the surrounding decision context is under-specified.

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 description coverage is reported as 0%, so the tool description should help explain the intent parameter. It only calls it a 'product-neutral trade intent,' which is a generic label rather than a useful semantic explanation. The rich nested schema exists, but the description itself does not compensate for the low coverage by explaining required fields, product-specific behavior, or the normalization target.

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 names a specific action and object: 'Build a normalized dry-run request' for a 'product-neutral trade intent.' The word 'dry-run' clearly signals preview rather than execution, which separates it from execution flows. It does not explicitly name or compare sibling tools such as htx_validate_trade_intent, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 phrase 'after validating a product-neutral trade intent' gives a prerequisite and suggests the tool is meant to be used once an intent exists, and 'dry-run' implies use before live execution. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over htx_validate_trade_intent or htx_reconcile_trade, and no exclusions are stated.

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