check_trading_eligibility

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: rate limit details, constraint of 'at least one, at most 100 combined' parameters, and specifics of what is returned (e.g., min position exposure, allowed order types). No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then details returns in a single sentence. It is informative but not excessively verbose. Could slightly tighten but is well-structured.

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 output schema exists, the description still explains the return fields in text, covering everything from leverage to stop-loss bounds. It also includes usage guidance and rate limits, making it fully complete for an agent to use 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by stating the combined limit (at most 100) and that at least one must be provided, which the schema does not enforce. This adds value.

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 tool returns per-instrument trading rules (leverage, sizing mode, SL/TP bounds). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (all get_* tools for balances, history, prices, etc.) by being the only eligibility checker.

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?

Explicitly advises 'Call before create_order to pick valid parameters,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. Also mentions rate limit (dedicated 20 requests/60s quota), which helps the agent plan calls.

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