stop_bot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool stops the bot and mentions possible return values (success/error), but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a graceful or forced stop, if it requires specific permissions, what side effects occur (e.g., cancelling trades), or typical response formats. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose but includes unnecessary details: the 'ctx' parameter note is redundant (not in schema) and the return statement is vague. It could be more concise by focusing solely on the tool's action and omitting schema-like annotations.

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 this is a mutation tool (stopping a bot) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks essential context: how the stop operation works, what 'success' entails, error conditions, or integration with sibling tools (e.g., use after 'fetch_bot_status'). The return value description is too generic to be helpful.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description includes a 'ctx' parameter note, but since it's not in the schema, this doesn't affect the score. Baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools, as the description doesn't need to compensate for missing param info.

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 action ('Stop') and target ('the Freqtrade bot'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'abort_backtest' or 'reset_backtest' which might also involve stopping operations, though those target different resources.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the bot must be running), exclusions, or relationships with sibling tools like 'start_bot' or 'fetch_bot_status', leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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