audit_trade_decision

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses cost ($0.07 USDC), return fields (direction held, PnL%, verdict), and that it is an accountability check. No side effects are mentioned, but it is a read-only 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?

Two sentences front-load the purpose and quickly cover key details (parameters, cost, return). Every sentence is essential with no redundancy.

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 three-param tool with no output schema, the description explains the return values and cost. It could mention error handling for invalid decision_id, but overall is sufficiently complete for its complexity.

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%, but the description adds significant value: decision_id ties to get_crypto_decision, window explains options and default, affiliate_id explains optionality and commission model. This goes beyond the schema.

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 audits a trade decision against real prices, using specific verbs 'verify' and 'audit'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_crypto_decision by being the post-decision accountability step.

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 specifies to pass decision_id from get_crypto_decision and a window, and states 'Every decision should be audited'. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context is clear.

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