pacifica_print_quote

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it declares read-only/nothing-signed, discloses that the premium is NOT quoted (and why), and flags that the displayed liquidation price is a docs-formula outer bound with a caveat that a liquidation occurred in one live case while the venue trigger is unpublished. This is unusually candid about limits and side effects.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and each subsequent fragment (liquidation caveat, premium note, CLI alternative) is materially useful rather than filler. It is dense and dash-heavy with stacked parentheticals, which slightly hurts scannability, keeping it from a 5.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by listing the preview's returned fields and explaining the one field it omits. Combined with full schema coverage for the six inputs, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only finer return-shape detail (formats/margins) is absent.

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%, so the schema already documents game, cycles, strike, deposit, leverage, and direction. The description adds context around what the call yields (e.g. max loss = deposit + premiums) but gives no per-parameter syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('Validate a Pacifica Print order and preview it') and enumerates exactly what the preview contains (notional, size on fill, liquidation price, max loss, lock period). It implicitly separates itself from sibling list tools like pacifica_print_products/pacifica_print_positions, but never names an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It clearly establishes the read-only preview context and, crucially, states that actually placing the order is CLI-only, pointing the agent to the alternative path and even noting --dry-run support. What's missing is any explicit routing against the MCP siblings (e.g. trade_preview), so it's clear context without named alternatives.

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