HTX Reconcile Trade

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations by framing this as a reconciliation read for uncertain post-submission states. It does not contradict the annotations and appropriately avoids over-explaining what the annotations already convey.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the key usage instruction follows immediately in the second.

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 read-only reconciliation tool, the description plus full schema and annotations provide everything an agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly. The output schema covers return shape, and the description clearly identifies the exact situation that warrants calling it.

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%, so the schema already fully documents all five parameters. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the submission/timeout context, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Read final order and fill state.' It also names the triggering scenario, 'after a submission or network timeout,' which clearly distinguishes this tool from market snapshot, account snapshot, and pre-trade validation siblings.

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 instruction 'Query this before retrying a timed-out submission' gives explicit, actionable guidance for when to use the tool. It does not list alternatives or exclusions, so it falls just short of a 5.

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