TradeMemory Protocol

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: querying all active plans, automatic expiration of outdated plans, and matching against context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, side effects (e.g., whether expiration is destructive), or response format, leaving gaps for a mutation-like 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 well-structured with a purpose statement followed by a bullet-point parameter explanation. Every sentence adds value, though the parameter section could be slightly more integrated. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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's moderate complexity (2 parameters, mutation-like behavior), no annotations, but with an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, behavior, and parameters well, though more behavioral context (e.g., side effects) would help. The output schema reduces need for return value details.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully explains both parameters: 'context_regime' as 'Current market regime' with enumerated values, and 'context_atr_d1' as 'Current ATR(14) on D1 in dollars'. This adds crucial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 with specific verbs ('Check', 'Queries', 'expires', 'matches') and resources ('active trading plans', 'current market context', 'active prospective plans'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on plan validation rather than creation, retrieval, or analysis of trades/strategies.

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 implies usage when needing to evaluate active plans against market conditions, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_strategy_performance' or 'recall_similar_trades'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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