otc_desk

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

The description mentions that fills settle between wallets and the desk only tracks state, which gives some behavioral context. However, it does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, or clearly state whether the tool is strictly read-only. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and falls short.

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 two sentences, front-loads the purpose, and avoids redundancy. It is concise and well-structured, though it could be clearer about the parameter and action scope.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description is incomplete. It provides high-level context about the OTC desk but lacks critical details like parameter purpose, return format, and a definitive statement of the tool's actions.

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 input schema has one optional parameter, orderId, with no description, and the tool description does not mention it at all. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description completely fails to compensate, leaving the agent with no guidance on what to pass.

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 it is a P2P OTC desk for large sizes and that it reads the live order book and stats. It distinguishes itself from other trading tools by emphasizing P2P and pool-moving size, but it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or also initiates trades.

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 large trades that would move a pool, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It never names a sibling tool or provides conditions for selection, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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