setMmp

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

Annotations are thin (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false only), so the description carries the burden — and it delivers: it discloses the rate limit (5 req/s), the permanent-freeze behavior of frozenPeriod='0' until manual reset, and the resetMmp dependency. This adds meaningful operational context beyond what the annotations state, with no contradiction.

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 reasonably sized but redundant: 'All parameters are required' and 'Set frozenPeriod to 0 for permanent freeze until manual reset' both appear in the first paragraph and are essentially repeated in the agent hint. The rate limit and ms-unit details earn their place, but the duplication wastes words and adds no new information.

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 5-parameter mutating tool with no output schema and no enums, the description covers the essentials: requirement status, units, numeric formatting rules, the special frozenPeriod value, the rate limit, and the reset flow. The main gap is that the semantic meaning of the parameters is left to domain inference, but overall an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 all params are untyped strings, so the description must compensate. It does add useful constraints: window and frozenPeriod are in milliseconds, qtyLimit and deltaLimit are positive numbers with max 2 decimals, and frozenPeriod='0' has special semantics. However, it never explains what window, qtyLimit, or deltaLimit actually mean as MMP concepts, and it repeats the required-ness that the schema's 'required' array already encodes.

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 uses a specific verb+resource: 'Configure Market Maker Protection parameters for options trading.' It clearly names the target domain (options trading) and the resource (MMP parameters), and it is easily distinguished from sibling config tools like setMarginMode, setPriceLimit, and resetMmp, as well as from the read-side 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 the tool: 'Use this to configure MMP for options market making.' It also references the related flow — set frozenPeriod to '0' to require manual reset via the resetMmp endpoint — which routes the agent to the correct alternative in that scenario. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but context is sufficiently clear.

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