create_trading_plan

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

The annotations are all false, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates that the plan is stored in prospective memory and remains active until triggered, expired, or cancelled, giving useful lifecycle context beyond the structured schema.

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 three concise sentences with no filler. It opens with the main purpose, then adds storage and lifecycle details, each sentence earning its place.

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 rich input schema and presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's core behavior and lifecycle. It lacks examples or edge-case handling, but it is sufficient for a tool of this complexity.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the description does not need to repeat parameter details. It adds no extra parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as creating a prospective trading plan that activates on conditions. It specifies the verb 'create' and the resource 'trading plan', and the activation rule distinguishes it from a general memory tool, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for setting up conditional trading plans but lacks exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to related tools like remember_trade or check_active_plans.

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