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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does well: it discloses the free vs premium result tiers (count + dated count + top 3 tickers vs full ranked list), the fallback behavior for invalid window_days, and explicit risk caveats (liquidity/borrow, microcap squeeze). It omits auth/payment mechanics, which the undocumented payment and session_token params imply.

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?

Front-loads the core concept before mechanics, and every sentence adds information (catalyst types, tiering, window, risk). Slightly dense and sprawling across the parenthetical list, but no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully describes what comes back (catalyst type, dated-unlock flag/date, evidence, tier limits). For a 3-param read tool this is close to complete, with the payment/session_token gap the main shortfall.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully specifies window_days (7/30/90, any other value coerces to 30), which is the only real tuning knob, but leaves payment and session_token entirely unexplained in both schema and prose.

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 resource (short candidates) and the discriminating concept (bearish fundamental catalyst) and explicitly contrasts it with momentum-based setups, letting an agent separate it from find_longs and find_setups without opening a schema.

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?

Explains the condition for use ('a coin need not have pumped; a fundamental sell catalyst qualifies') and gives the window_days conventions, so the agent knows when this tool applies rather than a momentum screen. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative to route to.

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