egx_trade_plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It only states the tool generates a trade plan, without revealing behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, requires real-time data, or has side effects. The lack of detail on what a 'full trade plan' entails further reduces transparency.

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 and front-loaded: one sentence for purpose, then clean parameter documentation. No unnecessary words or sentences, every piece earns its place.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to describe what the output (the trade plan) contains, such as entry/exit points, risk levels, or supporting analysis. The tool's complexity warrants more detail for the agent to understand the return value.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds examples for symbol and explicitly lists allowed timeframe values with a default, providing useful context beyond the bare schema. However, it does not explain the impact of different timeframes on the trade plan.

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 tool generates a full trade plan for a specific EGX stock, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like egx_fibonacci_retracement and egx_index_analysis by focusing on trade plan generation.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, contexts, or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer usage without explicit direction.

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