egx_trade_plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds no behavioral details such as output format, latency, data sources, or what 'full trade plan' entails beyond the name. It neither contradicts annotations nor enriches the agent's understanding of side effects.

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 and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by a tight args list. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 tool is simple (2 params, no output schema), and the description covers the core essentials of what it does and how to call it. However, the phrase 'full trade plan' is vague—the description does not clarify what the returned plan contains (e.g., entry/exit levels, risk guidelines, or analysis), which would be useful for an agent deciding how to use the result and whether this tool meets the user's request.

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 description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates. It provides concrete EGX symbol examples ('COMI', 'TMGH', 'FWRY') and explicitly enumerates valid timeframe values (5m, 15m, 1h, 4h, 1D, 1W, 1M) with a default, making parameter selection unambiguous and greatly exceeding the schema's bare string types.

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 'Generate a full trade plan for a specific EGX stock,' using a specific verb ('generate'), a distinct resource ('full trade plan'), and explicit scope (EGX stock). This differentiates it from sibling tools like egx_market_overview or egx_sector_scan, which focus on overviews or screens.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or why an agent should pick this over sibling tools such as multi_agent_analysis or backtest_strategy. The usage context is only implied by the purpose statement.

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