Create DCA Plan

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

Annotations already flag this as non-readOnly and non-destructive. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as whether creation is instantaneous, if it requires confirmation, or if duplicate plans are allowed. It repeats schema info without enriching the agent's understanding of 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?

The description is very short (two sentences) and avoids unnecessary words. However, it could be better structured (e.g., bullet points) for clarity. It earns a high score for conciseness but loses a point for lack of organization.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and many DCA-related sibling tools, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain what a DCA plan entails (e.g., recurring investments, how funds are sourced), what the response contains, or any constraints like minimum amounts. This inadequacy forces the agent to rely on trial and error.

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 baseline is 3. The description restates frequency options and day parameters but adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It does not explain 'amount' semantics (e.g., currency, decimal precision) or 'allow_margin' implications.

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 (Create) and resource (DCA recurring investment plan). The name 'dca_create' reinforces this purpose. Among sibling tools like dca_list, dca_update, dca_stop, this is distinctly the creation tool, providing clear differentiation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as having a funded account, or that an existing plan might need updating via dca_update instead. There's no mention of when not to create a plan.

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