sync_orders

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value beyond annotations by clarifying it does not send bets and by noting a behavioral difference between live and paper modes. It does not fully describe side effects or return behavior, but the additions are meaningful.

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 three short sentences, each earning its place: main action, mode-specific behavior, and a clear exclusion. The most important information is front-loaded. No redundant or filler content.

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 no-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and mode distinction, but it does not explain what the agent should expect as a result or return value (e.g., what a 'resolution' is or whether it returns a status). It also omits prerequisites (e.g., must have existing orders). The absence of output schema makes this gap more significant.

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 zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description correctly does not need to explain any parameters. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description meets that baseline.

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 verb and resource: 'Reconcilia órdenes live con fills confirmados' (reconciles live orders with confirmed fills). It also explicitly differentiates from trade-execution siblings by saying 'No envía apuestas' (does not send bets), clarifying it is not an order-placing tool. This makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context by distinguishing live versus paper behavior ('En paper consulta resoluciones') and explicitly states it does not send bets, which implies when not to use it. However, it does not name alternative tools (e.g., execute_trade) or provide explicit when-to-use conditions, so it lacks the strongest alternative guidance.

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