Pre-Trade Check (bundle) ($0.10)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description goes well beyond them: it discloses per-call pricing ($0.10 USDC on Base), the automatic x402 payment path via X402_PRIVATE_KEY, and that 4xx/5xx failures are not charged — operationally critical facts no structured field carries. It also reveals the response shape (single GO/CAUTION/NO_GO with plain reasons) despite there being no output schema, and adds a liability disclaimer. Nothing here contradicts idempotentHint=false, since each call is separately billed.

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?

Everything is packed into one dense sentence with no filler, and the component list is scannable. The ordering is slightly off for tool selection, since the billing/payment detail leads and the actual purpose arrives mid-sentence, but nothing is redundant.

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 four-parameter aggregation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, cost, failure billing, optional extensions, and the return shape — enough for correct invocation. Remaining gaps are modest: no indication of latency or whether the constituent data is fetched live versus cached, which matters for a pre-trade gate.

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 four parameters including the enum roots and the window range; baseline is therefore 3. The description adds one genuinely new semantic — that `ticker` yields market-wide insider clusters when omitted — but never mentions `window` or explains how `symbol` scopes the brief, so it does not meaningfully exceed 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?

States a concrete verb and deliverable — 'One GO / CAUTION / NO_GO answer with plain reasons before trading a futures contract' — and enumerates the exact components bundled (event-risk gate, session brief, SEC Form 4 insider activity, optional token verdict). Those components map onto the sibling tools (event_gate, session_brief, insider_buys/clusters, token_verdict), so an agent can immediately tell this is the aggregate rather than a single-signal call.

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 phrase 'before trading a futures contract' gives a clear trigger context, and the 'optional' markers on `token` and `ticker` tell the agent when those extensions apply. It stops short of explicit routing advice (e.g. 'call event_gate alone if you only need macro risk'), so alternatives are implied through the component list rather than stated.

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