get_trade_decision_context

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 explicitly states the tool is read-only, never recommends a direction, and does not mutate charts, Pine, alerts, orders, or journals. It also clarifies that decision_status reports only data and gate readiness, which is valuable beyond the schema. It omits potential failure modes or latency, but the core side-effect profile is well disclosed.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and scope, and the second adds essential safety semantics. Every phrase 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?

This is a high-complexity tool with 21 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description gives a useful high-level overview and safety guarantees, but omits the return structure, how parameters shape the bundle, what 'gate readiness' means concretely, and how to handle failures or partial data. An agent would need significant additional inference to invoke this tool confidently for varied use cases.

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?

There are 21 parameters and the schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description only lists high-level data domains (OHLCV, key levels, events, COT, real yield, execution evidence). It does not explain critical parameters like expected_timeframe vs. timeframes, include_real_yield vs. require_real_yield, event blackout windows, or execution timing controls. The description cannot compensate for the complete absence of parameter-level guidance.

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: 'Build one read-only evidence bundle for trade analysis.' It enumerates the data sources included and explicitly states what it never does, which distinguishes it from mutation-oriented siblings and single-source getters.

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 clearly implies when to use it: when a consolidated, multi-source evidence bundle for trade analysis is needed. It also establishes exclusions by stating that it never produces a directional recommendation and never changes charts, Pine, alerts, orders, or journals, though it does not name specific alternative tools.

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