start_autonomous_loop

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the safety burden and discloses key behaviors: periodic scanning, trade proposing, and possible automatic execution. However, it does not clarify how 'confirm mode' vs 'autonomous mode' is selected (e.g., via set_approval_mode), leaving a meaningful ambiguity.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every clause adds distinct value: the monitoring action, the interval, and the two behavioral modes. No filler.

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 is relatively simple and has an output schema, so return values need no explanation. The description covers the core behavior and parameters, but the mode-selection ambiguity and the absence of a pointer to stop_autonomous_loop are minor completeness gaps for an autonomous trading tool.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully explains both parameters: 'thesis' is the investment thesis being monitored, and 'poll_interval_seconds' is the frequency between scans. This fully compensates for the bare schema.

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: 'Start continuous market monitoring for a given investment thesis.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like stop_autonomous_loop and get_loop_status by defining its start action and scope.

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 the tool: when a user has an investment thesis and wants continuous monitoring. It does not explicitly contrast with one-off analysis tools or name alternatives, so it misses the top score.

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