trade

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies this is a market order (not limit/stop), mentions the need for user confirmation before execution, and references volume constraints that must be checked via get_symbol. While annotations cover idempotency and non-destructive nature, the description adds practical execution details that help the agent understand the tool's behavior.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first states the core functionality, the second provides critical usage guidance. There's zero wasted language, and the information is front-loaded appropriately for an agent's decision-making process.

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 trading execution tool with no output schema, the description provides good context about prerequisites (get_symbol), user confirmation, and execution type. It could be more complete by mentioning potential errors, response format, or market conditions, but given the annotations cover safety aspects and the schema is comprehensive, it's mostly adequate.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema - it mentions volume constraints but doesn't provide additional meaning for specific parameters. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Open a new position') and specifies it's a market order, distinguishing it from sibling tools like modify_position or close_position. It explicitly mentions the resource being created (a position) and the execution method.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Call get_symbol first to check volume_min/max/step' establishes a prerequisite, and 'Confirm with user before executing' provides clear usage context. It distinguishes from alternatives by specifying this is for opening new positions versus modifying or closing existing ones.

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