resetMmp

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the conditional outcome ('Unfreezes... or resets counters if not frozen') and the exact post-condition ('counters go to 0 regardless of whether the account was frozen or not'). It also includes a rate limit of 5 req/s, giving the agent operational expectations beyond readOnly/destructive hints.

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: purpose first, then conditional behavior, rate limit, and an agent hint. Every sentence adds useful information; the repetition between 'reset counters' and 'counters go to 0' is minimal and clarifies the exact effect rather than bloating the text.

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?

For a tool with a single required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential call context: when to use it, what it does, and the post-reset counter state. It is slightly incomplete in that it does not specify valid baseCoin values/formats or describe the response shape, but given the low complexity this is a minor gap.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description only restates that baseCoin is the sole required parameter, which duplicates the schema's required field. It does not explain what baseCoin represents, what format/values are valid, or how it relates to the MMP state being reset, leaving the agent to infer semantics from the parameter name alone.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Reset MMP freeze state and clear trading history counters.' It then clarifies the conditional behavior ('Unfreezes the account if currently frozen, or resets counters if not frozen'), making the tool's purpose precise and distinguishable from related tools like setMmp and getMmpState.

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 states when to use this tool: 'Use this to unfreeze an MMP-frozen account or reset the qtyLimit/deltaLimit counters.' This provides clear invocation context, though it does not name alternative tools or explicitly say when not to use it, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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