mt4_autotrading

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

With no annotations provided, the description effectively discloses behavioral traits: it reports terminal-level master switch, per-EA best-effort decode, and flags non-uniform configurations. It also notes the authoritative nature of the terminal master switch.

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 at about 7 sentences, well-structured with a summary followed by detailed notes. No redundant information, every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool has one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what is reported (master switch, per-EA flags), limitations (best-effort decode), and output behavior (flags non-uniform/disabled). Complete for the tool's complexity.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by explaining the single 'terminal' parameter, including its default value 'all' and that it can be a terminal id. This is sufficient for parameter understanding.

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 reports algo-trading status, covering terminal master switch and per-EA flags. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing specifically on autotrading status.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (checking autotrading status) and explains its output structure. It implicitly guides usage but does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare with alternatives among siblings.

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