get_playbook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It does not state whether this is read-only, whether it requires auth, or the format of results beyond field names. It hints at read behavior with 'Fetch', but no explicit safety or side-effect info is given.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence and lists returned fields. The example questions add context but slightly dilute conciseness; still, structure is clear and mostly 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 no-param, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description lists returned fields but does not cover pagination, ordering, or error behavior. It is adequate but leaves several behavioral gaps that would matter to an agent.

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?

Zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it correctly leaves them out.

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 (Fetch) and resource (saved playbook setups and trading strategies), and enumerates the fields returned. Distinguishes itself from siblings like get_playbook_rules or get_strategy_stats by scoping to saved playbook setups.

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?

Provides example questions that imply when to use it (listing saved setups/strategies), but offers no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives. The usage is implied rather than stated.

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