paper_check_fills

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action without detailing what happens to orders, whether prices are required, or if auto-fetch affects state. No mention of destructive behavior, authentication needs, or rate limits.

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?

A single sentence concisely conveys the core purpose without fluff. It is front-loaded and efficient, though slightly more detail could improve usefulness without harming conciseness.

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 has 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to clarify parameter interactions, default behavior, or how auto-fill works in detail. The agent lacks context to use the tool reliably.

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% with clear parameter definitions (fetch as boolean, prices as JSON string). The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, so 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 clearly states the verb 'Auto-fill' and the resource 'open paper orders', specifying the action based on current market prices. It distinguishes from sibling tools like paper_buy, paper_sell, and paper_fill by implying an automated batch process.

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 like paper_fill or manual order management. It neither mentions prerequisites nor contrasts with sibling tools, leaving the agent uninformed about selection criteria.

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