calculate_annual_cost

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the read-only and closed-world nature is already covered. The description adds the annualization method (12 months of fees, funding, withdrawal fees times yearly count) and that an upgrade quote is included, which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose any limitations or edge cases. With annotations carrying the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 relatively long but well-structured with clear front-loaded usage conditions in both Chinese and English. The first sentence explains when to use, the second describes the calculation method, and the last lists required parameters. Some repetition between the bilingual parts, but overall efficient.

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?

With 27 parameters (4 required) and no output schema, the description omits any explanation of how the many optional parameters affect the output or what the output looks like. It only mentions the four required parameters, leaving the agent unaware of the optional parameters that can customize the calculation (e.g., useToken, fundingMode, spreadMode, withdrawal parameters). Given the complexity, more guidance is needed for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters in detail. The description only mentions that it requires exchange, purpose, country, and monthlyVolumeUsd, which repeats what the schema already says. It adds no meaning beyond the schema for the 27 parameters.

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 uses a specific verb (annualizes) and resource (total trading cost on an exchange), and clearly distinguishes from siblings by naming the three cost components (fees + funding + withdrawal) and the upgrade quote. An agent can tell it apart from calculate_savings or compare_total_cost without opening the schema.

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 states when to use: when the user asks for annual/yearly cost of trading on an exchange, or how much reaching the next VIP tier would save per year. This is a clear usage condition with no ambiguity about alternatives.

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