paper_trade_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that no market-data or broker call is made, indicating a read-only, non-side-effect operation. It also describes the return content in rich detail, helping agents understand what to expect, though it does not cover error cases or authentication requirements.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource, then elaborates with meaningful content details. No words are wasted; every clause adds value, including the explicit 'No market-data or broker call is made' behavioral note. It is exemplary in its economy and clarity.

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 read operation with one parameter and an output schema, the description is quite complete. It discloses the scope ('one'), the nature ('simulated', 'durable'), the contents, and a key behavioral guarantee (no external calls). However, it does not mention what happens if the trade_id is invalid or not found, which is a minor gap that could be inferred from the output schema. Overall, it is sufficient for an agent to invoke 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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters and already provides a clear description for trade_id: 'Trade UUID returned by paper_trade_record.' The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond this. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 applies, and the description does not enhance or clarify the parameter further.

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 ('Read'), the resource ('one durable simulated trade'), and the specific content included (intents, fills, fees, quotes, snapshots). It also distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'one' trade and explicitly noting that no market-data or broker call is made, which differentiates it from potential alternatives like paper_trade_list or paper_trade_record near the same domain.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when a single trade's full details are needed, and explicitly notes that no external data calls are made, implying it is safe for quick lookups. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use paper_trade_list for multiple trades'), relying on the 'one' keyword and sibling names to convey scope distinction.

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