pexbot-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context about required fields for Autonomous accounts and the importance of specific, time-bound reasons, warning that generic reasons 'will be publicly visible and reflect poorly on your analysis.' However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what happens after order placement (e.g., confirmation, execution details). The description provides some behavioral insight but leaves gaps for a financial transaction tool.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by specific requirements and warnings. Every sentence adds value—no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for requirements) but remains efficient and clear.

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 complexity (11 parameters, financial transaction tool) and no annotations or output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers key aspects like Autonomous account requirements and reasoning quality, but lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, auth), error scenarios, or return values. For a tool with significant parameters and no structured output, it should provide more context to be fully helpful to an AI agent.

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 the schema already documents all 11 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema: it emphasizes that reason_ko, reason_en, and confidence are 'required for Autonomous accounts' and that reasons must be 'specific and time-bound,' referencing a guide. However, it doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or examples beyond what's in the schema descriptions. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3.

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's purpose: 'Place a buy or sell order on a market.' It specifies the verb ('place') and resource ('order'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cancel_order' or 'activate' beyond the core action. The description is specific about the action but lacks sibling comparison 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 some usage context: 'For Autonomous accounts, reason_ko, reason_en, and confidence are required' and references a 'trade_reasoning_guide prompt.' However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cancel_order' or 'activate,' nor does it provide clear exclusions or prerequisites beyond the Autonomous account requirements. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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