get_trade_ideas

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

Discloses read-only nature, no authentication required, and no parameters. Since annotations are absent, the description adequately covers key behavioral traits for a data retrieval tool.

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 sentences with no waste. First sentence states purpose and output; second sentence provides usage guidance and distinguishes from sibling. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description is fully complete. It covers what the tool does, its operational characteristics (read-only, no auth), and how to choose between it and a sibling 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?

Tool has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. Description does not need to add parameter information beyond the input schema, which is fully covered.

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?

Description clearly states tool returns 'AI-generated trade ideas derived from active theses and current market data, each with rationale and target contract.' It distinguishes itself from sibling 'get_edges' by noting the difference in output (pre-packaged suggestions vs raw mispricings).

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 advises when to use this tool ('when you want pre-packaged actionable suggestions') and when to use the alternative ('use get_edges for raw mispricings without commentary'). Also states it is read-only and requires no auth.

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