create_agent

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility. It discloses key behaviors: wallet receives 500 bsUSD, strategy compiled into executable rules running every 5 minutes, credentials saved to ~/.conviction/agents.json. Missing return value details, but core behaviors are well covered.

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 concise with three sentences covering purpose, process, and limits. It front-loads the main action and provides necessary details without verbosity.

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 lacks information about the tool's return value (e.g., agent ID, credentials). It also does not mention authentication requirements or what happens on failure. Given no output schema, the description should have addressed these gaps.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the creation process (funded wallet, API key) and providing examples for the strategy parameter. This helps the agent understand how parameters are used.

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 'Create a new autonomous strategy agent.' It specifies the outcomes: funded wallet (500 bsUSD), API key, and automatically running strategy every 5 minutes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like toggle_agent or update_strategy, which modify existing agents.

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 context: wallet funding, API key generation, local credential storage, and rate limits (10 active agents per owner, 3 per hour). This guides when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with alternatives.

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