paper_trade_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'No market-data or broker call is made' which is a valuable behavioral disclosure about side effects and external dependencies. It does not specify pagination behavior or state-value meanings, but these are partially covered by the output schema and enum values. Overall, it provides useful transparency beyond the bare function.

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 16-word sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler words. It earns every word.

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?

The tool has an output schema that can document return values, and its simple parameters (limit/state) are captured in the schema. The description adds 'durable' and 'no market-data or broker call' which gives important context about scope and side effects. It is sufficiently complete for a list operation with a small parameter set.

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 schema describes limit but not state. The description adds 'optionally filtered by state', clarifying the state parameter's role. However, it does not explain the meaning of each state enum value, and the schema itself lacks descriptions for those values, leaving a known gap. With 50% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but not fully.

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 ('List') and identifies the resource ('durable simulated trades') and optional filter ('by state'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like paper_trade_get or paper_trade_record.

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 about what the tool does (lists trade records) and notes that no market-data or broker call is made, implying it is safe and fast. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over siblings or provide exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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