HTX Validate Trade Intent

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

The description aligns with the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive) and adds that it returns checks, implying no side effects. While it doesn't elaborate on specific behaviors, the annotations already provide strong transparency, and the description does not contradict them.

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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words or repetition. It efficiently conveys the core function and differentiator.

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?

The description, combined with the rich input schema and annotations, provides sufficient context for understanding the tool's role. It does not mention output structure or error handling, but the presence of an output schema and the clear purpose make it adequately complete for usage.

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 description provides no parameter-level details, but the input schema includes exhaustive descriptions for the nested intent object and its fields. Since the schema coverage is high, the description does not add value to parameter semantics; baseline score 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 clearly states the tool's function: validating a product-neutral trade intent and returning checks without a request preview. It distinguishes itself from the sibling preview tool by explicitly noting that it does not perform a preview, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 description implies usage for validation rather than preview by stating 'without a request preview,' which differentiates it from htx_preview_trade. However, it does not explicitly outline when to choose this tool over other siblings or provide comprehensive when-to-use guidance.

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