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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the verdict semantics, scoring bands, the deliberate neutral band, per-call payment, trial duration, 402 retry behavior, and informational-only nature. That is thorough transparency for a paid tool.

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?

Dense and mostly front-loaded, but the long payment/grading tail could be tightened; each clause does add needed 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?

Covers the verdict semantics, grading thresholds, sign convention, payment/retry behavior, and distinguishes from the free pitch tool. With no output schema, an agent has enough to know what call will do and what to expect.

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 100% and the single parameter is already well documented with examples. The description reinforces the example format and clarifies 'any symbol in the covered universe,' but adds only marginal meaning beyond the 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?

States a specific action and resource (evaluate a symbol) and defines the output: a bottom/top verdict with score and time-frame breakdown. The explicit contrast with `pitch` distinguishes it from a sibling tool, so an agent can select it correctly.

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 gives concrete usage context: it works for ANY symbol, unlike the free `pitch` tool which only covers the showcase symbol, and it explains the paid-call flow plus the 402 retry header. This is actionable when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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