set_stop_loss

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses key constraints: existing position required, auto-detection of position_size, and the 'only stop loss' scope. However, it does not state whether an existing stop loss is replaced or what happens if no position exists, so some behavioral detail is missing.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a compact argument list and a clear note. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff or repetition.

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's moderate complexity, an output schema exists, and the description covers purpose, parameters, constraints, and alternatives. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 explains every parameter with meaningful context: coin examples and existing-position requirement, stop_loss_price purpose, and position_size auto-detection. 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 sets ONLY a stop loss order on an EXISTING position, using specific verbs and resource. It also distinguishes from sibling tools set_take_profit_stop_loss and place_bracket_order, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 says when to use (only for existing positions, only stop loss) and when NOT to use, naming alternatives: 'Use set_take_profit_stop_loss if you want both TP and SL, or place_bracket_order for new positions.' This is ideal guidance.

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