trade_summary

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

The annotations already establish the safe-read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description's job is to add operational nuance, and it does: it flags that tick-rule pressure is an 'estimate' and that results include a 'completeness check against official totals', warning the agent that some figures may be approximate or partial. It does not mention cost or latency for what is likely a heavy intraday aggregation, which keeps it short of full marks.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the core action and then a compact enumeration of the returned sections. No filler, no restatement of the name, and the listed outputs are exactly the information an agent needs to decide if the tool fits.

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 five parameters, 80% schema coverage and no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating the returned components in place of a formal output schema. What remains unstated, such as units, formatting, and runtime cost for a full-day aggregation, is minor for a read-only 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 80%, with the date, symbol, from_time and to_time parameters already documented in the schema. The description adds only indirect hints: 'a day's ticks' implies the date scope, and 'intraday bars' hints at interval_minutes, but the interaction between from_time/to_time and interval_minutes is not clarified. Baseline 3 is appropriate where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 leads with a specific verb and resource ('Aggregate a day's ticks') and then enumerates the exact derived outputs (intraday bars, VWAP, biggest trades, volume by price level, tick-rule pressure, completeness check). That makes it clearly a one-shot aggregation tool rather than a raw data fetch. It never names a sibling, though, so the agent must infer on its own that it differs from 'trades' or 'price_history'.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this tool is for getting a full-day computed summary rather than raw ticks. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over 'trades', 'price_history', or 'symbol_statistics', and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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