Check Trade Legitimacy

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, which is slightly unusual for what reads as an evaluative check; the description explains it's a gating decision ('earned the right to trade at full size') rather than a mutation, adding useful behavioral context. It stops short of describing the return semantics or thresholds, but output schema exists to cover that.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the timing instruction. Efficient and easy to scan, though the second sentence packs several evaluation factors into a list.

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 an output schema exists and full schema coverage, the description needn't detail return values. It adequately conveys purpose, timing, and evaluated dimensions for a decision-gating tool.

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 four parameters thoroughly, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond indicating what is evaluated.

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 states a specific purpose: checking whether the agent has sufficient data and confidence to trade, and it lists the evaluated factors (sample size, memory quality, regime experience, streak state, drawdown). It's distinguishable from siblings like validate_strategy or get_agent_state, though the description does not explicitly contrast with them.

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?

It gives a clear timing cue: 'Call this before making any trade decision.' This tells the agent when to use it, but it doesn't name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases (e.g., versus validate_strategy or compute_dqs).

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