get_crypto_decision

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the decision types, outputs, and costing, including that it is probabilistic and requires verification, which is thorough.

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 informative but somewhat verbose, mixing core functionality with pricing and the verification loop. It is still efficient and front-loaded.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description adequately explains return values (decision, confidence, regime, decision_id) and the verification process, making it sufficiently complete for a 2-parameter tool.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, so the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. It briefly restates the symbol and affiliate_id but does not provide additional semantic context.

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 a probabilistic trade decision (CONSIDER_LONG/SHORT/NO_ACTION) with confidence, regime, and decision_id, distinguishing it from siblings like audit_trade_decision and get_crypto_risk.

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 explicitly instructs to verify the decision using audit_trade_decision after 1 hour and outlines the full cycle and costs, but does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or alternatives beyond the audit step.

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