Idx Calc Tranche Orders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Calculate' and the tool name 'calc' correctly signal a pure computation with no market side effects, and 'lot allocations' hints at IDX lot rounding. However, it never explicitly states that no live orders are placed, nor does it disclose the tranche split rule or rounding convention, which matters for an agent deciding whether this tool is safe to invoke.

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?

A single 13-word sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. 'Mathematically disciplined' is mildly qualitative but earns its place by conveying the methodology trait. There is no filler, repetition, or dangling context.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered, and all five parameters are fully documented in the schema, leaving the description free to focus on purpose. The gaps are behavioral: no explicit non-execution statement, no tranche-split logic, and no guidance on how this tool chains with the quote/orderbook siblings. Moderate complexity means these gaps are not fatal, but a safety-relevant sentence would complete the picture.

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 baseline of 3 applies. The description's references to '2-tranche' and 'lot allocations' echo the budget and lot-related concepts but add no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already documents. The description does not compensate further, and none is needed given full coverage.

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 names a specific verb ('Calculate') and a specific resource ('2-tranche limit orders and lot allocations') scoped to 'an IDX stock'. It clearly differentiates from siblings: every sibling is a data-retrieval or analysis tool (get_*, analyze_*, sanitize_*, check_*), while this is the only calculation tool, so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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 offers no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. Usage is only implied: the tool's purpose (structuring limit orders) makes it evident it belongs after quote/orderbook data is gathered, but the agent must infer this from the name and sibling set rather than from stated guidance.

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