sync_mt5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It does not say whether the sync writes/overwrites local trade data, whether it is idempotent, how long it may take, or whether duplicates are created — significant gaps for a tool that mutates stored state.

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?

A single tight sentence with the action front-loaded and zero waste. It is efficient, though it borders on under-specification given the behavioral gaps.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the parameter is fully documented. However, for a state-changing sync tool with no annotations, the description omits operational context an agent needs (source availability, side effects, duration).

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% and the single `force` parameter is already documented as 'Re-read every file and rebuild all trades'. The description adds no additional meaning about `force`, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource ('Pull the latest trades from MT5') with temporal immediacy ('right now'), which distinguishes it from read-only siblings like find_trades and get_trade. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, so an agent must infer the sync-vs-query distinction.

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?

'Right now' implies the tool is for on-demand refresh, which hints at when to call it, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus find_trades/get_trade, nor any stated preconditions (e.g., MT5 must be running) or exclusions.

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