check_trade_preflight

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return fields (allowed status, market state, cooldown, signal strength, warnings) and cost. It does not mention error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, but for a preflight check these are less critical. The description is fairly transparent about the tool's behavior and expected outcome.

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 tightly packed sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and returns in one go; the second sentence provides the next step and cost. No unnecessary words. Front-loaded with 'Step 1 of the trade loop' for immediate context. Excellent structure.

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 no output schema, the description explains the key return values and the next step. It covers the tool's role in the trade loop. It does not detail every possible output or error condition, but for a simple preflight check the information is sufficient. The sibling tools list shows this is one of many, but the description places it correctly in the sequence.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions the symbol parameter implicitly but adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema. The affiliate_id parameter is not referenced in the description. The cost detail is useful but not parameter-specific. No extra clarification is provided.

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?

Clearly states it is 'Step 1 of the trade loop' and checks trade conditions. Explicitly mentions what it returns (allowed:true/false, etc.) and directs the agent to proceed to get_crypto_decision. Distinguishes itself as the first step in a sequence, making its purpose and role unambiguous.

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?

Identifies itself as the first step and instructs 'If allowed, proceed to get_crypto_decision,' providing clear sequential guidance. It also mentions the cost ($0.05 USDC). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with sibling tools like get_crypto_signals, though the context implies it is the initial check.

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