track_asset

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

Annotations already mark the tool as idempotent. The description adds value by explaining the upsert mechanism, the condition for requiring max_single_invest_cny, and the effect on committee/DCA coverage via the tracking list. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral context beyond idempotency.

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 a single, compact sentence that conveys the core functionality and a key condition. It is front-loaded with the upsert concept. While concise, it could be more structured (e.g., separate the creation and update cases) to improve readability without adding length.

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 six parameters and an output schema (not visible here), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain most parameters or the return value. The context of sibling tools and annotations is present, but the description does not fully compensate for the complexity, especially the lack of parameter documentation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It only clarifies that max_single_invest_cny is required when creating and mentions its purpose. Other parameters (symbol, channel, display_name, sell_fee_pct, price_offset_pct) are not described, leaving the agent to infer from names. This is insufficient for a six-parameter tool.

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 performs an upsert (idempotent) operation on a tracking asset. It specifies the behavior: create if not exists, update if exists with only passed fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like untrack_asset, which is the inverse operation.

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 indicates when to use the tool (to track an asset) and mentions a conditional requirement for creation (max_single_invest_cny must be supplied). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like untrack_asset, though the sibling context provides implicit differentiation.

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