check_algo_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions what is checked (e.g., schedule deviation) but doesn't disclose permissions needed, rate limits, response format, or whether it's read-only or has side effects. For a status-checking tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 a single, efficient sentence that lists key status aspects without fluff. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses a colon to introduce details, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (status checking with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the check returns, how results are formatted, or behavioral constraints, leaving significant gaps for the agent to operate effectively.

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 low at 33% (only 'algo_id' has a description), but the description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. It doesn't explain the meaning of 'symbol' or 'status' enum values, nor does it clarify interactions like omitting 'algo_id' for all active orders. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate for the coverage gap.

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 clearly states the verb 'check' and resource 'algo orders', listing specific status aspects like schedule deviation and execution quality. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cancel_algo' or 'modify_algo' by focusing on status monitoring rather than modification, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like 'query_orders'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'query_orders' or 'check_ticker'. The description implies usage for monitoring algo order health but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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