Open Funding Farm Position

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

Annotations mark this as destructive, non-read-only, but the description adds crucial context: 'this places a REAL order', the preview/confirm workflow, the API key requirement, and the builder code caveat. This goes well 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 structured into clear, focused sentences with line breaks, each adding essential information. The warning about real order placement is prominent and not buried. No wasted words.

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?

For a tool with multiple modes, confirmation flow, API key, and a builder code, the description covers all necessary operational aspects. The output schema exists to handle return values, so not describing them is acceptable.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description fully explains all three parameters: mode with its two values and implications, max_usd as a size cap, and confirm with its preview/execution semantics. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 function as 'Open a funding-farming position' and explains the two modes. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'open_pacifica_leg' or 'open_with_bracket', but the verb-resource combination is specific enough.

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?

It explains when to use hedged vs directional mode and provides a critical usage flow: preview with confirm=false, then confirm=true after explicit user approval. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context for using this tool is clear.

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