journal_add_trade

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions default entry date to 'now' but does not explain validation, side effects, error handling, or return values. The output schema is not referenced.

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 extremely concise: two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the action and required parameters, and the second adds optional fields and a default behavior. No unnecessary words.

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 the complexity (7 parameters, 0% coverage, no annotations, many siblings), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers core functionality but lacks usage guidance, behavioral details, and output information. Context signals indicate a need for more depth.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate. It lists the required and optional parameters and specifies that side is 'long/short', adding meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not explain formats for symbol, entry_price, or shares beyond their listing.

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 tool's purpose: 'Add an open trade to the journal.' It lists the required fields (symbol, side, entry price, shares) and optional ones, distinguishing it from siblings like journal_close_trade and journal_list_trades.

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 implies usage for recording new open trades but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., journal_close_trade). No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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