compute_round_trip_cost

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 reveals that the result is an assumption-based estimate rather than broker data, which is a meaningful behavioral trait. It does not disclose defaults for optional parameters like commission_per_unit or slippage_pips_per_side, nor does it explain units or validation behavior.

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 tightly written sentences, with the primary action first and the caveat second. It contains no filler or repetition of schema details, so every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description is acceptable for a relatively simple calculator but has clear gaps: there is no output schema and the description does not state return format, units, or handling of omitted optional parameters. It also does not connect to sibling tools or typical workflow context, leaving an agent to infer how the result should be consumed.

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 links bid/ask to spread, slippage_pips_per_side to slippage, and commission_per_unit to commission, which adds semantic grouping beyond the raw schema. However, it does not explain the required symbol and quantity parameters or how optional parameters behave when omitted.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Compute explicit round-trip spread, slippage, and commission cost for a supported instrument.' It clearly identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from broker execution data, so an agent can understand its role.

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 caveat 'This is an assumption model, not broker execution data' gives useful context for when the result should not be treated as execution evidence. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of related siblings such as compute_position_size or get_quotes, so usage guidance remains implied rather than fully explicit.

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