stop_live_algorithm

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations. Annotations provide 'idempotentHint: true', indicating safe retry behavior, but the description doesn't elaborate on what 'stop' entails (e.g., whether it halts trading immediately, preserves state, or requires specific permissions). No contradiction with annotations exists, but the description misses opportunities to clarify the tool's operational impact.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, though this comes at the cost of completeness.

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 (stopping a live algorithm is a significant operation), the description is inadequate. While an output schema exists (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description lacks crucial context: no parameter guidance, no behavioral details beyond the basic action, and no differentiation from sibling tools. For a mutation tool with only minimal annotations, this leaves substantial gaps.

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 0%, with only one parameter ('projectId') documented in the schema without a description. The tool description provides no parameter information whatsoever, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation. This leaves the agent with insufficient understanding of what 'projectId' represents or how to obtain it.

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 action ('Stop') and target resource ('a live algorithm'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'liquidate_live_algorithm' or 'broadcast_live_command', which might have overlapping or related functionality in the live algorithm context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools related to live algorithms (e.g., 'liquidate_live_algorithm', 'broadcast_live_command', 'create_live_algorithm'), but the description doesn't mention any of them or explain when this specific stop action is appropriate versus other control mechanisms.

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