tv_paper_trade

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds useful context by stating 'deterministic historical bars' and 'No real money, no broker, no live orders.' This goes beyond annotations and confirms a safe, simulated operation.

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?

Three short sentences deliver all essential information with no filler. The opening 'Pro+' and main verb phrase make the purpose immediately clear, and the safety qualifiers are neatly appended.

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 comprehensive schema and read-only annotations, the description is sufficient for selecting the tool. It doesn't describe return values (no output schema), but for a simple simulated backtest the core behavior and constraints are well covered.

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 coverage is 100% with all seven parameters described. The description adds no extra parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description uses a specific verb+resource ('Run a SIMULATED strategy backtest over deterministic historical bars') and clearly distinguishes this from real trading and other chart/backtest tools. The explicit 'No real money, no broker, no live orders' reinforces its purpose and scope.

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?

Clearly frames when to use: simulated backtests only, with no live trading implications. It also notes the Pro+ requirement. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like tv_backtest_compare, so exclusions are implicit rather than fully explicit.

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