freeze_trading

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well by disclosing the write action, the exact mutation ('Locks daily allowed trades to 0 in risk limits'), optional account deactivation, and the journal logging side effect. It also mentions the return of freeze status. It omits permission requirements and whether the action is reversible (though unfreeze_trading implies it), keeping it from a 5.

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 front-loaded with an action tag and a dense purpose sentence, followed by three illustrative examples. Every part serves a purpose, though the examples could be seen as slightly verbose; overall it is well structured and 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?

For a mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains what changes, optional account deactivation, and that it returns full freeze status. Missing details about permissions, reversibility, and interaction with open trades prevent a perfect score.

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 input schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds only contextual examples (e.g., 'Freeze trading for 24 hours') but no new semantic details beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 and resource ('freeze trading', 'trading freeze / cooldown') and states the tool's effects: locking daily trades to 0, optionally deactivating an account, and logging a journal reflection. It distinguishes itself from siblings like pause_account by explicitly describing a psychological disciplinary freeze and risk-limit lock, though it does not name the alternative directly.

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?

Three concrete example questions clearly illustrate when to use the tool: after consecutive losses, after breaching a daily limit, or to prevent revenge trading. However, it does not name alternative tools (e.g., pause_account) or state explicit exclusions, so it falls short of the top score.

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