Trade on Strata

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's job is to refine those. It does: submission only happens with a session, it respects user autonomy limits, and without a connection it degrades to a harmless read-only quote. This conditionality is exactly the nuance annotations cannot express, and it does not contradict the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, each with a distinct job: purpose, parameter semantics, and conditional behavior. The purpose is front-loaded. Minor deductions for the filler word "obvious" and for the human-amounts sentence partially duplicating the schema description.

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 covers the no-session return path (quote plus setup link) but not the session path's return behavior, which matters for an agent deciding whether to proceed. With no output schema and six parameters, it also leaves the meaning of "autonomy limits" and the relationship to siblings like strata_quote and strata_autonomy unstated.

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 schema coverage at 50%, the description should compensate for undocumented parameters, but it only reinforces what the schema already says about amount ("Human amounts such as 0.1 SOL and $20 are supported" mirrors the schema example). It adds nothing about idempotencyKey or maximumToleranceBps, both of which lack schema descriptions — a genuine gap for a potentially destructive trading tool.

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 opening phrase "Quote and trade in one obvious tool" names specific actions (quote, trade) and a resource (Strata markets), making the tool's dual role immediately clear. It implicitly distinguishes itself from strata_quote by covering both quote and trade, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 two-state behavior (no trading connection → read-only quote + setup link; with a session → follows autonomy limits and may submit) tells the agent how the tool behaves in different contexts, which implies when it is safe to call. However, it never explicitly names alternatives like strata_quote for quote-only needs, nor states exclusions, so the agent must infer routing from sibling names.

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