Prop Firm Deal Finder

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

The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies the output format ('markdown format'), confirms partial matching behavior, and lists the specific data fields included (profit split, challenge types, etc.). It does not contradict the readOnlyHint=true annotation.

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 well-structured with clear Purpose/Args/Returns/Examples sections. It is front-loaded with the core function. The examples add legitimate value for an LLM agent, though the sentence 'Returns everything a trader needs...' is slightly redundant with the first sentence.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description appropriately compensates by specifying the return format ('Full firm profile in markdown format') and content scope. With only one simple parameter and no nested objects, the description provides sufficient context for correct invocation.

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 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The Args section in the description essentially restates the schema description (partial matching supported, examples) without adding significant semantic nuance like validation rules or normalization behavior.

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 ('Get') and resource ('prop firm details'), then enumerates exactly what data is returned (discount code, profit split, drawdown rules, etc.). This distinguishes it from siblings like pfdf_search_firms (which likely returns lists) or pfdf_get_discount_code (which returns just one field).

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 examples imply usage patterns ('Tell me about FTMO'), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus pfdf_search_firms (for discovery) or pfdf_compare_firms (for comparison). The phrase 'complete details' hints at scope but doesn't explicitly state selection criteria.

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