Print Expected-Value Evaluator

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

Annotations already establish this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds valuable context: it uses ~9 years of hourly history, computes specific metrics, and discloses a known measured result as of a date. The mention of 'vol_gate()' introduces some ambiguity, but overall it enriches the behavioral picture beyond the annotations.

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 front-loaded with purpose and organized into two paragraphs. It is detailed but not bloated, though the 'print_eval's vol_gate()' reference is an abrupt aside that slightly breaks flow. Still, every sentence contributes meaningful 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?

Given the tool's statistical complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description provides substantial context: input parameters, methodology, a historical finding, and an exception. It doesn't explain side/symbol semantics or the vol_gate() reference, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and invocation.

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 is the sole source of parameter meaning. It explains shown_apy as the % in the Pacifica UI and distance_pct as distance from mark with a valid range, but leaves side and symbol undescribed. This partial compensation earns a 3.

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 opens with 'Evaluate a Pacifica Print offer statistically,' clearly stating a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like print_quote, print_order, and print_close by focusing on statistical evaluation rather than execution, and enumerates the computed metrics (fill probability, overshoot, breakeven APY).

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 explains when this tool is useful: to compute expected value for a Print offer given shown_apy and distance_pct. It provides a concrete measured result and an exception condition (ETH short at 2% distance under trailing vol <24.2%), implicitly guiding when favorable windows exist. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so a 4 is appropriate.

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