Tremor Watch

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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses ordering ('newest first and most unusual first'), the exact break criteria, and the returned fields including week, markets, family, direction, z, and correlation.

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 front-loaded with the key purpose and is appropriately sized for a domain-specific tool. However, the first sentence is a dense run-on that packs the break definition, ordering, and timing together, which slightly reduces readability even though every clause carries relevant information.

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?

Given the output schema and rich annotations, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It defines the domain concept, time window, ordering, return fields, and filter values, leaving no major ambiguity about what the tool returns or how to use its optional parameters.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: 'family' is explained as narrowing to Equity regions, US sectors, Credit, Bonds, Commodities, FX and crypto, Volatility, and 'direction' is explained as strengthening versus weakening with definitions for each.

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 gives a specific verb-resource pairing and scope: new breaks in the last four weeks of the Antevo Tremor Index. It precisely defines what a 'break' is, including the two-standard-deviation crossing and thirteen-week reset condition, so an agent can distinguish this from sibling tools like get_tremor_history or get_tremor_index.

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 scope and filters make the intended use clear: retrieve recent unusual correlation breaks, optionally narrowed by family or direction. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as get_tremor_history for older breaks, but the four-week window and 'new breaks' framing provide strong contextual guidance.

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

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive call, so the safety burden is covered. The description goes further and discloses behaviors the annotations cannot: ordering (oldest first), sampling (one reading per period, taken on its last Friday), and automatic step-up to months then quarters beyond 160 readings. It stops short of describing error conditions or an explicit cap on total returned rows.

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?

What it returns is front-loaded correctly, and every clause carries information, but the whole definition is delivered as a single dense run-on sentence with colons and parentheticals chained together. It is efficient in length yet harder to scan than it needs to be, and phrases like 'how many times a normal Friday it was' take a second read.

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 three-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the definition supplies what the structured fields cannot: ordering, period semantics, the automatic granularity step-up, and the historical start date. The one real gap is sibling differentiation, which matters here because three other tremor tools are available.

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 carries the full burden and largely does: weeks is bounded 1–1600 with default 52, until is typed as YYYY-MM-DD with its effect on the window, and every is enumerated as week/month/quarter with week as default. What it doesn't state is whether the automatic step-up overrides a user-supplied every, leaving a small ambiguity in a low-coverage schema.

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: 'The Antevo Tremor Index over time, oldest first', and enumerates the fields returned (week, level, multiplier of a normal Friday, status, strengthening/weakening split, period peak). It does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling get_tremor_index, so an agent must infer the difference from 'over time'.

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?

Clear context is given for each parameter: weeks for how far back to go (with a default and a floor of 1997), and until for ending the period at a specific week, with a worked example ('weeks=78 with until=2009-06-30 is the 2008 crisis'). It never says when to choose this tool over get_tremor_index, get_tremor_breaks or get_tremor_pairs, so the sibling routing is left implicit.

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

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

Annotations already establish that the tool is read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds useful semantic transparency by defining what the index measures, how status thresholds map to percentiles, and what the family-level comparisons represent.

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 a single dense sentence packed with nested parenthetical definitions, which makes it hard to scan. It is not repetitive, but its structure could be improved by breaking the content into shorter, front-loaded statements.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description does not need to document return structure in full. It nevertheless supplies rich semantic context for the index, statuses, rankings, and family comparisons, leaving only explicit sibling-routing guidance as a notable gap.

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 has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline score for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description does not introduce any confusion about inputs.

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 resource: the current week's Antevo Tremor Index, including its components and status. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as get_tremor_history or get_tremor_pairs, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'This week's' implies this tool is for the latest weekly snapshot rather than historical data or pair-level breakdowns. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus get_tremor_history, get_tremor_breaks, or get_tremor_pairs.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely useful interpretation rules beyond that — what positive vs. negative z means, the three direction states including 'holding below two standard deviations', and the nine-week half-life weighting. It stops short of mentioning ordering guarantees at the result level or pagination beyond limit, which keeps it from a 5.

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 purpose is front-loaded and virtually no word is filler, but the entire definition is one long semicolon-chained sentence that mixes return-field definitions with parameter documentation. The parameter list is hard to scan and would benefit from being broken out.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, yet the description still supplies the interpretive meaning of the fields (z direction, half-life weighting), and all five optional parameters are documented with defaults and constraints. Annotations cover the safety profile, so nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description has to carry the full burden and does: week accepts any date within the target week (with default), breaking_only is a two-standard-deviation threshold filter, family narrows to one family, market filters to pairs naming a given market with concrete examples (Gold, S&P 500, Bitcoin), and limit is bounded 1-200. Only 'family' lacks an example value, a minor gap.

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 names a concrete resource and scope — the pairs of one week of the Antevo Tremor Index, most unusual first — and enumerates what each pair contains (markets, family, weighted correlation, z-score, direction, 26/52-week correlations). That granularity implicitly separates it from siblings like get_tremor_index or get_tremor_breaks, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

Usage is implied through parameter behavior: 'breaking_only (default true) keeps pairs at two standard deviations or more' and 'week is any date ... default the latest' tell an agent how the default call behaves. There is, however, no explicit guidance on when to reach for this tool over get_tremor_index, get_tremor_history, or get_tremor_breaks, and no stated exclusions.

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