set_reduce_only

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

The description discloses the behavioral effect (blocks buys, permits sells/SL) and the precedence relationship with total pause, which goes beyond the annotations. The annotations already signal mutation/destructive/idempotent, so this adds useful context without contradiction.

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 concise sentences with no filler; the main effect is front-loaded and the second sentence adds a crucial priority caveat. Every word 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?

For a simple one-boolean setter, the description covers the core behavior and the interaction with total pause. It does not define the disabled state or explicitly identify the total pause tool, but annotations and sibling names provide enough context.

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% description coverage, so the description must explain the boolean parameter. It does not explicitly mention 'enabled' or map true/false to the described behavior, though the effect implies what the tool does when activated. This gap leaves the agent to infer the parameter meaning from the tool name and description.

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 states a clear, specific action: blocking new purchases while allowing sales and stop-loss. It distinguishes itself from the sibling set_trading_paused by noting that total pause takes priority, so an agent can tell these tools apart.

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 that this tool is for partial restriction rather than full pause, and it notes that total pause has priority over this setting. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over set_trading_paused or set_stop_loss, leaving the decision to inference.

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