添加持仓记录

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context by noting this is a simulated (paper trading) operation intended for later P&L tracking, but it does not disclose side effects like duplicate handling, whether the record overwrites an existing position, or what response to expect.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and context, with no redundant or extraneous 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 simple 4-parameter add-record tool, the description conveys the core purpose and the simulated environment, but because there is no output schema and no annotations, the agent is left without guidance on return values, error behavior, or idempotency. A slightly richer description would make it more 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (price, volume, symbol, market) having a clear description in the schema. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so it stays at the baseline of 3.

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 the action ('add'), the resource ('position record'), and the context ('simulated account'), making it instantly distinguishable from sibling tools like portfolio_view and portfolio_chart which read rather than write.

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 implies that this tool is for recording simulated positions for P&L tracking, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus the portfolio_view or portfolio_chart siblings, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative tools.

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