eterna_agent_prompt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the guardrail nature of the output, mentions risk caps/stop loss/approval gates, and states no credentials are needed. It does not explicitly state there are no side effects, but for a prompt-returning tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 concise, front-loaded sentences. The first states what is returned and its content highlights; the second gives the intended usage and a credential note. Every word earns its place, with no 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?

For a simple one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what is returned, when to use it, and a key prerequisite. It could potentially note that the returned template is ready to paste directly, but the current text is sufficient for correct invocation and use.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single 'variant' parameter, including its enum values and default. The tool description does not add new semantic detail beyond implying multiple template types, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Return a guarded prompt template for a trading agent on Eterna.' It also enumerates key contents (risk caps, mandatory stop loss, approval gates), making the tool's function immediately identifiable and clearly distinct from the sibling tools, which cover connection status, fees, and setup.

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?

Explicit usage context is provided: 'Use it as the system or session prompt once the Eterna tools are connected,' and the note 'No credentials needed' clarifies prerequisites. However, no explicit alternatives or exclusionary guidance are given, though none are strictly necessary given the clear differentiation from its siblings.

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