remember_trade

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations by detailing the side effects: writes to episodic memory, auto-updates semantic (Bayesian), procedural (running averages + hold time + Kelly), affective (EWMA confidence/streaks), and writes to trade_records for backward compatibility. This level of disclosure is critical for a tool with significant side effects, and the annotations only indicate mutation (readOnly=false), not the full scope. No contradiction exists.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second sentence lists the side effects. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or redundant phrases. It delivers substantial information in just two sentences.

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 complexity (17 parameters, multiple memory layers), the description provides a comprehensive overview of behavior and integration with the OWM system. It explains the automatic updates and backward compatibility, which is essential context. The output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, and the input schema covers parameter 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 100%, so all 17 parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides. It does indirectly add context by explaining why the tool exists (e.g., 'Improves OWM scoring quality' is in the schema), but the description itself does not clarify parameter meanings. Thus a baseline 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 states the tool's purpose: 'Store a trade into OWM multi-layer memory with automatic updates.' It specifies the resource (trade), the action (store), and the scope (multi-layer memory with automatic updates). It distinguishes itself from sibling read/query tools by explicitly listing the memory layers affected (episodic, semantic, procedural, affective, trade_records).

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when a trade needs to be recorded into the OWM memory system with all automatic updates. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state 'when not to use,' but the context is well defined. Given the sibling list includes many read/query tools, the write-oriented wording effectively differentiates it without needing explicit exclusions.

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