tastytrade_verify_historical_fill

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key non-mutating behavior: 'never rewrites the live paper event,' which is important for an agent to understand side effects. It also mentions that it returns 'separate post-session evidence.' However, it does not describe other behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or failure modes. The description is partially transparent but leaves gaps.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The two sentences have no redundancy and effectively convey the core function and a key behavioral guarantee. It is appropriately sized for a tool of moderate complexity, though it could include a bit more guidance without becoming verbose.

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 (a single request object with many nested required fields, no output schema), the description is far from complete. It does not explain what 'frozen paper-order limit' means, what 'forward historical interval' implies, or how to structure the request. It also does not describe the output format or any error conditions. An agent attempting to call this tool correctly would be missing essential context, especially without annotations or an output schema.

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?

The description provides zero information about the 'request' parameter or its nested fields. The schema is complex with many required properties, but the description does not explain what any of them mean, how to construct a valid request, or which combinations are valid. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate, but it fails to do so. The agent would have to rely entirely on the schema, which has minimal field descriptions (only 'provider_symbol' has a description).

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 states a specific verb ('verify') and a precise resource ('frozen paper-order limit') within a defined context ('forward historical interval'). It also clarifies the output ('separate post-session evidence') and the non-mutating behavior ('never rewrites the live paper event'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like backtest creation or simulation, which are about generating or running tests rather than verifying an existing frozen order.

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?

The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions that would select this tool over others (e.g., when you need to check if a limit was touched in a past session) nor does it name any sibling tools. The verb 'verify' and the mention of 'frozen paper-order limit' imply a verification use case, but without explicit context or exclusions, the agent is left to infer usage.

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