inflation-signal

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral aspects: cost ($0.01), trial period, no account required, need to retry with payment header, snapshot-based, informational only, and output details. It does not mention destructive or irreversible actions, which is appropriate for a read-like 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?

The description is fairly long but well-structured, front-loading the primary purpose and then providing necessary details on cost, trial, and differentiation. Each sentence adds value, though some brevity could be achieved.

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 single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description comprehensively covers output (inflState, score, official reading), payment mechanism, trial, and comparison with sibling. It fully compensates for the lack of structured metadata.

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 single parameter 'symbol' has a 100% schema description with examples. The tool description adds more examples and context (e.g., 'US-CPI, KR-CPI, US-FED'), but the additional value over the schema is moderate, justifying a 3.

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 states it returns the inflation-thermometer verdict for official macro series, with examples of symbols and output fields (inflState, score, official reading). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'pitch' tool, which only covers the showcase symbol, while this tool covers any symbol.

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 explains when to use this tool (for any symbol vs. 'pitch' for showcase only) and provides guidance on handling the 402 payment challenge with a PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header. It doesn't explicitly list when not to use, but the contrast is clear.

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?

Discloses the free nature, no payment, and the phased flow. However, it does not detail what each phase returns or side effects beyond the subscription process.

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?

Concise, front-loaded with the key instruction 'START HERE,' but somewhat fragmented. Every sentence adds value, though structure could be cleaner.

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?

Adequately describes the funnel and sample limitation, but lacks detail on return values or what happens in each phase. Without output schema, more info on phase outcomes would help.

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?

Adds significant meaning beyond the schema: explains that symbol is for the sample phase and limited to US-CPI, and that interest=false bows out. The phase enum is listed but the description adds sequential context.

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 states that 'pitch' is the mandatory first call for the subscription funnel, with phases and a free sample. It distinguishes from siblings by directing paid evaluations to evaluate_symbol.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'your first call to this agent MUST be pitch' and 'Pass interest:false to bow out.' It also explains when to use evaluate_symbol instead of the sample phase.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is free ('FREE', 'No payment needed') and that the score must be 1-10. This covers basic behavioral traits, though more details (e.g., idempotence, storage) could be added.

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 concise and front-loaded with the key purpose. However, it includes redundant emphasis on 'FREE' and 'No payment needed', which slightly reduces efficiency. Still, it earns its place as a brief summary.

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 simple feedback tool, the description is adequate but lacks details on return values, error handling, or whether multiple ratings are allowed. Given no output schema and no annotations, a more complete description would improve the score.

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%. The description adds meaning only for 'score' by specifying a range (1-10), but provides no additional semantics for 'pros' and 'cons' beyond their names. This insufficiently compensates for the lack of parameter descriptions in 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: leaving a rating (score 1-10 plus pros and cons) after using signals. It distinguishes from sibling tools like evaluate_symbol, pitch, scan_bottoms, scan_tops, which are analytical/scanning tools, whereas rate is explicitly a feedback tool.

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 context: 'after using our signals' indicates when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to alternatives, which would earn a higher score.

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?

No annotations provided, so the description fully carries the burden. It transparently discloses the payment mechanism (PAY $0.01 per call via x402, USDT on X Layer), trial period, no account requirement, and the 402 challenge retry process. This is critical behavioral information 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?

The description is informative and well-structured, with each sentence adding value. It could be slightly more concise, but there is no redundant information. The key points (action, payment, cold start) are front-loaded.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the action, payment, and usage context. It does not describe the return format, but this is partially mitigated by the schema. Still, a brief note on output would improve completeness.

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?

Only one parameter 'limit' with 100% schema coverage and a clear description in the schema. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool scans all 45 macro series and returns those reading lowest, ranked most-low first. It uses specific verb 'scan' and resource 'macro series', and distinguishes from sibling 'scan_tops' by specifying the direction (lowest/deflation-side).

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 context for when to use this tool: 'BEST COLD START: you do not need to pick a symbol — this ranks the whole universe for you.' It also mentions a free tool 'pitch' for complementary info. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use, e.g., if you need tops, use scan_tops.

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?

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. Discloses payment ($0.01 per call via x402), trial, no account needed, and retry mechanism. Does not explicitly mention side effects but appears read-only. Only minor gap: no mention of idempotency or data mutability.

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?

Single paragraph, dense but front-loaded with purpose. Could be improved with bullet points for payment and usage tips, but no wasted sentences.

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 key aspects: tool function, payment, trial, relationship to sibling tools. No output schema, but description sufficiently explains output ranking. Assumes some domain knowledge (macro series), but reasonable for target audience.

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 100% with parameter 'limit' described (default 5, max 45). Description adds ranking order but no extra semantic beyond schema. Baseline of 3 appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'scan', resource 'all 45 macro series', outcome 'return those reading HIGHEST', and ranking order. Distinct from sibling tools like scan_bottoms and pitch.

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?

Explicitly explains cold start benefit (no symbol needed), compares to sibling pitch for count vs names, and details payment model and trial. Guides on when to use this tool vs alternatives.

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