check_fix_sessions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states what metrics are checked but lacks behavioral details such as whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'check'), potential performance impact, error handling, or output format. This leaves gaps for a tool that likely interacts with live trading systems.

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 front-loads the purpose and lists key metrics without unnecessary words. Every element earns its place by specifying the tool's focus clearly.

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 complexity of FIX sessions in trading contexts and the lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address critical aspects like whether this tool is safe for live environments, what the return data looks like, or how to interpret the health metrics, leaving significant gaps for an AI 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'venue' documented as 'Specific venue, or omit for all'. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond this, such as examples of venue values or implications of omitting it. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately covers the single parameter.

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 the resource 'FIX session health', with specific metrics listed (status, sequence numbers, heartbeat age, latency). It distinguishes from siblings like 'dump_session_state' (which likely provides raw data) or 'session_heartbeat' (which likely sends heartbeats) by focusing on health assessment.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. While the purpose implies it's for monitoring FIX session health, there's no mention of prerequisites, timing (e.g., during trading hours), or comparisons to siblings like 'check_algo_status' or 'run_premarket_check'.

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