modify_algo

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 behavioral disclosure. It implies mutation ('modify'), but doesn't specify permissions needed, side effects (e.g., if pausing affects orders), rate limits, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a tool that modifies active 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 actions clearly. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary details.

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 modifying an active algorithm, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, and return values, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by 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 33% (only 'new_pov_rate' has a description). The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'update POV participation rate', which loosely relates to 'new_pov_rate', but doesn't explain 'algo_id' or 'action' beyond what the enum implies. With low coverage, it partially compensates but leaves key parameters undocumented.

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 'modify' and the resource 'active algo', with specific actions listed (pause, resume, update POV participation rate). It distinguishes from siblings like 'cancel_algo' or 'check_algo_status' by focusing on modification rather than cancellation or status checking, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., algo must be active), exclusions, or compare with siblings like 'cancel_algo' for stopping versus pausing. The description only lists actions without contextual usage advice.

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