set_trading_paused

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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: the change is persistent, affects only new executions, and queries remain available. This meaningfully clarifies the tool's runtime behavior without contradicting the annotations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence delivers the core behavior and two important qualifications: persistence and unaffected queries. There is no filler or repetition.

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 boolean setter with strong annotations and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states what is toggled, that the effect persists, and that read operations are unaffected. It does not cover effects on in-flight orders or authorization requirements, but those are marginal for this 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 only parameter, paused, has no schema description (0% coverage). The description's 'Pausa/reanuda' makes it easy to infer that true=paused and false=resumed, but it does not explicitly map boolean values to the parameter. For a single boolean this is adequate but not fully compensating for the missing schema documentation.

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 identifies a specific action: pause/resume new trading executions, and adds that the effect is persistent. This is distinct from siblings like execute_trade, cancel_order, or set_reduce_only because it gates future executions rather than performing or canceling individual orders.

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 the use case: toggle the execution gate while keeping queries available. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives such as cancel_order for existing orders or set_stop_loss for risk controls, so the usage guidance remains inferred rather than explicit.

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