validate_trade_against_risk_rules

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists what the tool checks but does not indicate whether the output is a boolean pass/fail, detailed report, or if it blocks execution. There is no mention of side effects or return format.

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?

Two well-structured sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose. No wasted words, though a third sentence could add detail without harm.

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?

Despite the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, the description omits crucial details: what the tool returns, how it aggregates results, or how optional parameters affect validation. It is incomplete for safe usage.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides no explanation of what each parameter means for this tool (e.g., symbol, side, quantity). The description only lists high-level validation categories without connecting to input parameters.

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 a full pre-trade validation checklist, specifying exactly what it covers: permissions, market status, risk limits, stop/target presence, risk:reward, position size, daily loss, open positions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_max_daily_loss or validate_order_before_execution.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Run this BEFORE any paper or live order.' This provides clear timing and context. However, it does not explicitly exclude any scenarios or mention alternatives.

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