validate_trade_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the tool is non-mutating with respect to TradingView, Pine, alerts, orders, and journals, and it discloses the key output types. It does not discuss failure modes, data staleness, or authentication needs, but for a validation-only tool the most important behavioral trait is clearly stated.

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 sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, the side-effect guarantee is stated immediately, and the outputs are summarized efficiently. Every part of the description 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 tool has 23 parameters, no parameter descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description provides only a high-level overview. An agent would not know what a valid trade plan payload looks like, what quality issues are covered, how the cost adjustment is calculated, or what the exact response structure is. Given this complexity, the description is not complete enough for reliable 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% across 23 parameters, and the description provides no parameter-level guidance. It does not explain how to construct a valid 'proposed trade plan', what fields are required, how targets map to risk/reward, or what 'cost-adjusted' means. The description adds essentially no meaning beyond what the schema's raw types and constraints already show.

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 uses a specific verb + resource combination: 'Validate a proposed trade plan'. It clearly states what the tool does (validation) and what it returns (quality issues and cost-adjusted Target 1 risk/reward), and it distinguishes itself from execution/alert/order-producing siblings by explicitly saying it changes nothing in TradingView, Pine, alerts, orders, or journals.

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 gives clear context: use this when a proposed trade plan needs validation before any execution or side effects. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the 'without changing...' phrasing effectively implies when not to use it. Absence of explicit sibling routing keeps it from a 5.

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