Open Pacifica Hedge Leg

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

The description adds critical behavioral context beyond the annotations: it warns 'IMPORTANT: places a REAL order,' requires PACIFICA_API_KEY, describes the confirm=false preview flow, and notes that builder code 'mustache' is attached only if approved. These details are not present in the annotations (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: true) and are essential for safe usage.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then workflow, then the real-order warning, and finally builder code detail. Each sentence carries essential information with no redundancy or filler, making it concise and well-structured.

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 that an output schema exists, return-value details are not required. The description covers the tool's purpose, prerequisites (plan_oi_hedge, API key), side effects (real order, confirm flow), and behavioral constraints. It omits the meaning of max_usd and does not describe post-order actions, but the coverage is sufficient for correct selection and invocation in most scenarios.

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 clarifies 'symbol' and 'side' by mentioning they represent the perp position's symbol and long/short direction. It also explains 'confirm' via the preview vs. execute flow. However, 'max_usd' is not described at all, and the description does not provide parameter-level details such as accepted values or units, leaving a gap in understanding.

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: 'Open the Pacifica leg of an OI-farming hedge: a perp position on the given symbol and side ('long' or 'short').' This is a specific verb+resource construction that singles out this tool from siblings like open_funding_position and plan_oi_hedge by explicitly naming the Pacifica side and mentioning the OI-farming hedge context.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use plan_oi_hedge first to pick the symbol/side, and open the opposite position on the recommended exchange yourself, this tool only executes the Pacifica side.' It also instructs the user to call with confirm=false first and only confirm=true after approval, which is a clear procedural directive for safe usage.

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