store_trade_memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explains this is a storage/write operation ('store into memory') and mentions auto-generation of trade_id and timestamp defaults, but doesn't cover important behavioral aspects like data persistence guarantees, error handling, or whether this overwrites existing entries. The description adds some context but leaves significant gaps.

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, usage guidance, and detailed parameter explanations. While comprehensive, it's appropriately sized for a 10-parameter tool. The front-loaded purpose and usage sentences earn their place, though the parameter section is lengthy but necessary given the schema coverage gap.

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 (10 parameters, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description does well. It covers purpose, usage timing, and all parameter semantics. However, it lacks details about behavioral aspects like data persistence, error conditions, or how this integrates with sibling tools beyond basic differentiation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing clear semantic explanations for all 10 parameters. Each parameter gets specific guidance (e.g., 'Trading instrument (e.g. "XAUUSD")', '"long" or "short"', 'ISO format timestamp. Defaults to now (UTC)'), adding substantial value 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 ('store a trade decision with full context into memory') and distinguishes it from siblings like 'remember_trade' by emphasizing comprehensive context storage. It explicitly mentions building a 'memory bank' for better recall later.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Call this after executing a trade to build your memory bank.' It distinguishes from siblings by specifying this is for post-trade storage with full context, unlike 'recall_memories' or 'get_trade_reflection' which are retrieval tools.

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