pacifica_print_products

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does meaningful work: it declares read-only and explains the Print mechanic (resting orders fill or liquidate only at cycle checkpoints; after a fill it behaves as an ordinary perp with continuous liquidation). It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and pagination, so it is not exhaustive, but the domain mechanics are genuinely non-obvious context.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the return payload and followed by the domain definition; no filler. The first sentence is a dense comma-separated run-on, which slightly hurts scanability but not substance.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is the only source of information, and it supplies both the returned fields and the semantic model of a Print product. What it lacks is positioning relative to the sibling print tools, which is the main remaining gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which sets the baseline at 4. The field list in the description describes returned data rather than inputs, and the empty schema is consistent with a no-argument read call, so nothing is missing or misleading.

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 the resource (Pacifica Print products), marks it read-only, and enumerates the returns (game id, cycle length, max leverage, deposit caps, target distance). The verb is implicit ('returns') rather than explicit, and it never names the sibling tools (pacifica_print_quote, pacifica_print_positions) it must be distinguished from, so an agent must infer the split.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing at all. With three other print_* siblings in the toolset, the definition gives no signal that this is the discovery step preceding pacifica_print_quote. The domain gloss explains the product, not when to call the tool.

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