set_take_profit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context such as 'must have an existing position' and 'will auto-detect from existing position if not provided' for position_size. However, it does not describe error behavior when no position exists, the order type created, or side effects like replacing existing take profit orders, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 well-structured with an Args section and a note. Every sentence serves a purpose: defining scope, listing parameters, and pointing to alternatives. There is no filler or redundancy, striking an appropriate balance between detail and brevity.

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 simplicity (3 parameters, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is comprehensive. It covers the core action, constraints, parameter semantics, and usage alternatives. The output schema handles return values, so the description need not describe them. This is more than sufficient for correct selection and invocation.

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 explains 'coin' as a trading pair with the constraint of an existing position, and 'position_size' with auto-detection behavior. 'take_profit_price' is only restated as 'Take profit price', which adds no new meaning beyond the schema, but the overall parameter guidance is strong.

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 with a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('take profit order for an EXISTING position'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing 'ONLY' and 'EXISTING', and even names alternatives in the note. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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: 'This is specifically for setting ONLY take profit on EXISTING positions.' It also names alternatives: 'Use set_take_profit_stop_loss if you want both TP and SL, or place_bracket_order for new positions.' This fully directs the agent on tool selection.

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