set_stop_loss

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructiveHint=true), the description adds valuable behavior: execution is not guaranteed, the stop-loss persists after restart, a worker must be running, and slippage is an absolute price tolerance. It stops short of explaining the destructive effect, such as whether an existing SL is overwritten.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and trigger modes, followed by caveats and prerequisites. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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?

It covers the key operational constraints: non-guaranteed execution, worker requirement, persistence, and one active SL per token. However, the ambiguity of the 'O' between trigger modes and the undefined behavior when an SL already exists leave edge cases unresolved.

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 must explain the parameters, and it does clarify loss_percent vs trigger_price and the meaning of slippage. However, it never explains the required local_order_id, nor whether loss_percent and trigger_price are mutually exclusive.

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 specific action and resource: 'Autoriza SL automático para una compra' and identifies the two trigger modes (percentage vs absolute). This clearly differentiates it from sibling stop-loss tools like list_stop_losses and cancel_stop_loss, though it does not name them explicitly.

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?

It provides relevant usage context: 'Sólo a pedido del usuario', 'Un SL activo por token', and the prerequisite 'Requiere MCP/worker encendido'. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over sibling tools or what to do when a stop-loss already exists for the token.

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