egx_trade_plan

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to explain what a 'full trade plan' entails (e.g., entry, exit, risk parameters), whether it requires internet access, or any side effects. Minimal behavioral detail is provided.

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, starting with the main purpose in one line, followed by a clean list of arguments. No unnecessary words, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 adequately covers the parameters, but lacks information about the output (what a trade plan contains) and any usage context (e.g., prerequisites, limitations). Given the absence of an output schema, the description should ideally describe the return format.

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 0%, so the description compensates well by explicitly listing valid timeframe values (5m, 15m, 1h, etc.) and providing example symbols for the symbol parameter. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 generates a full trade plan for a specific EGX stock, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like egx_index_analysis or egx_market_overview, which cover broader scopes.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where it is appropriate or inappropriate, nor does it reference sibling tools for context.

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