PIT-bound exact-rung paper exit context

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description exposes meaningful internal behavior: it binds the request to PIT and rechecks USD/USDT conversion, required bid bands, six venue clocks, and startup SHA. It also disclaims nearest-rung, live, execution, and clearance behavior. No contradiction exists between the description and 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?

The description is compact, front-loads the primary purpose, and each sentence earns its place: the first states what the tool returns, the second what it verifies, and the third what it explicitly does not do. The dense acronyms are acceptable given the tightly scoped domain and the absence of redundant filler.

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 makes the read-only, idempotent, context-only nature clear, and it enumerates the internal checks the tool performs. But there is no output schema, and the description never specifies the shape or concrete contents of the returned 'evidence.' An agent knows when to call it and what it will not do, yet lacks a clear picture of what it will receive.

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 only 33% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates: 'sell' maps to side, 'BTC/USD' to instrument, 'observe/paper' to mode, and 'exact-rung' to requested_size_usd. However, it does not clarify the venue null constraint or explain terms like 'source pack' and 'reviewed rights' in relation to the parameters, leaving the parameter story incomplete.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: it returns 'Exact-rung BTC/USD sell evidence for observe/paper Trade Safety.' The description further distinguishes the tool by explicitly saying it is 'Context only' and that it provides 'no nearest rung, live mode, execution or clearance authority,' which separates it from execution-oriented siblings like exit_cost or unwind_watch.

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 clearly identifies the intended use case: observe/paper Trade Safety. It also gives explicit exclusions, noting the tool is not for live mode, execution, or clearance authority. However, it does not name an alternative sibling to use when those exclusions apply.

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