paper_mark_prices

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

Annotations already declare the non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context ("does not fetch or invent live quotes"), but omits what happens to existing marks, whether valuation updates are persisted, and how stale or missing symbols are handled.

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?

Two short sentences, the affirmative behavior first and the exclusion second. Nothing redundant and nothing padded.

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 write tool with a nested-object parameter, an optimistic-concurrency field, and no output schema, the description is too thin. An agent cannot learn from it what a revision mismatch does, whether the call fails or retries, or what state the account is left in.

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 only 33%: account_id is documented, while prices and expected_revision are not. "Explicitly supplied current prices" hints at the prices mapping but gives no key format (symbol vs. ID) or bounds, and expected_revision — a concurrency token on a non-idempotent mutation — is completely unexplained in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Value local simulated positions") plus the input mode ("using explicitly supplied current prices"), which distinguishes it from quote_get/quote_batch in the sibling list without naming them. A sibling distinction is implied by the quote-fetching caveat rather than stated explicitly, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 the usage context (you already have prices) and warns against using it as a quote source, but never says when to call it, what to call first (e.g. quote_batch), or any prerequisites. No alternatives are named despite paper_trade and paper_account_get being adjacent tools.

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