log_trade

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool writes to a local file and is called after order execution, which implies a side effect. However, it does not disclose potential failures, whether it overwrites existing logs, or any permissions needed. Acceptable but limited for a write operation with zero annotation support.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and includes an essential usage instruction. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 has 10 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is somewhat minimal. It explains when to call it and what it does, but does not clarify the relationship with order_id (which is optional but logically required), nor does it mention return values or error behavior. This is a moderate gap for such a parameter-heavy 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra context by referring to '근거·지표 스냅샷' (rationale/indicator snapshot), which hints at the rationale and indicators parameters, but it does not meaningfully expand beyond what the schema already provides. It is functional but not additive.

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 records a rationale and indicator snapshot to a local file after trade execution, using a specific verb ('기록합니다') and resource ('로컬 파일'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly tying to create_order and noting it logs AI trading history, differentiating from read-only get_trade_log.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'create_order 호출 후 반드시 호출해' (must be called after create_order). This gives clear usage timing, though it does not mention alternatives or exclusions. The instruction to call it as a mandatory follow-up is sufficient for most agents.

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