recEasyBotStrategy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds useful behavior beyond annotations: the rate limit and the fact that the returned `biz` should be fed into the corresponding create endpoint. No contradictions with 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 core behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the rate limit and agent hint are relevant and well placed. There is slight redundancy between 'returns ... biz' and 'the response includes biz', but overall every section earns its place.

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 covers purpose, when to use, rate limit, and enough of the return value to continue toward a create endpoint. However, there is no output schema and the description does not explain the shape of the returned 'strategy' portion or map the opaque enum values for product and direction, so it is not fully complete.

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 description adds conceptual meaning by mentioning the symbol/product/direction triple and explaining product as spot or futures and direction as the user's desired direction. However, schema description coverage is 0% and the enum values for product (0/1/2) and direction (0/1/2/3) are never mapped, leaving an important gap for correct invocation.

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 action and resource: it returns a single Aurora-recommended strategy plus the `biz` type for a `symbol` + `product` + `direction` triple. It also ties the tool to the EasyBot one-click create flow, which distinguishes it from broader or alternative strategy tools.

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 agent hint explicitly says to use this when the user wants the simplest path to create a bot, with just symbol, spot/futures, and direction. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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