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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose key behavior: the output vocabulary, the score range, a confidence value, and the per-pillar decomposition, plus a $0.007 price signal. It omits whether results are cached, how fresh the underlying data is, expected latency, and whether the verdict is deterministic — notable for a paid decision tool with zero structured disclosure.

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?

One front-loaded sentence delivers purpose, call frequency, output shape, and cost with no filler. The leading price token is unconventional placement, and the pillar list is dense, but nothing is redundant.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain return values, and it does so concretely (verdict enum, 0-100 score, confidence, pillar breakdown). The remaining gap is operational context — data freshness, latency, and caching — which matters for a paid pre-trade gate but is not stated.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the schema to document and no parameter ambiguity is possible. Baseline of 4 applies; there is no additional parameter meaning the description could usefully add.

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?

Names a specific action and resource — a single call that produces a DEPLOY / WAIT / REDUCE / AVOID verdict with a 0-100 score — and enumerates the six underlying pillars (regime, sentiment, whales, funding, liquidations, trade history). This clearly separates it from single-signal siblings like regime or funding_rate, since it is positioned as the aggregate.

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?

"Call this once before deploying capital instead of making six separate checks" gives an explicit trigger and an implied alternative (the individual pillar tools). It falls short of 5 because no sibling is named and no when-not condition is stated (e.g., for quick ticks or grid-specific decisions).

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