trade_commit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the important precondition (both sides locked), which is valuable context beyond the schema. However, it does not state the consequences of committing (e.g., finalizing the exchange, irreversibility, or error behavior if not locked), leaving meaningful gaps for a state-changing action.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It communicates the action and the precondition immediately.

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 zero parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description must carry the full context. It provides the precondition but omits what commit actually does (finalize the trade) and its irreversible nature. Adequate for basic invocation but incomplete for a critical final action.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. The schema is trivially complete, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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 states a specific verb (commit) and resource (trade), and the precondition 'after both sides have locked' distinguishes it from sibling actions like trade_lock, trade_cancel, and trade_accept. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly name the siblings it is not.

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?

It gives an explicit condition for invocation: only after both sides have locked. This is clear usage context. It does not mention alternatives or what to do if the precondition is not met, but the key gating condition is stated.

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