inflation-signal

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

No annotations are provided, but the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it is snapshot-based, informational only, and has a payment requirement ($0.01 per call, first call opens trial). It also explains the PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header for handling 402 challenges. No contradictions.

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 somewhat long but well-structured, front-loading the main purpose and output, then covering payment details and sibling comparison. Every sentence provides useful information, though it could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.

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 tool with no output schema, the description explains the output format (inflState, score, latest reading, release period). It also sets expectations about payment and limitations, making it complete for the tool's purpose.

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 a brief description for 'symbol'. The tool description adds significant context by listing example values (US-CPI, KR-CPI, etc.) and explaining that the parameter is a series key for 45 covered series, enriching 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 returns an inflation-thermometer verdict for one official macro series, listing covered series and output fields. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'pitch' tool by specifying that this tool answers any symbol and provides per-indicator breakdown.

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 explicitly contrasts with the free 'pitch' tool, noting that 'pitch' only shows a live verdict for a showcase symbol, while this tool answers any symbol and adds breakdown. It also mentions payment terms and that it's snapshot-based and informational only, guiding the agent on when to use.

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 are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is free, no payment, and describes the phase-based funnel. However, it does not detail side effects or state persistence, which is acceptable given its interactive nature.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with critical usage instruction ('START HERE'), and concisely explains the funnel and exit condition without extraneous words.

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 complexity of a stateful funnel tool, the description provides enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly: the order of phases, the free nature, and the escape hatch. It does not elaborate on each phase's response, but the agent likely understands its own flow.

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 low (33%), but the description adds value by explaining the interest parameter ('pass interest:false to bow out') and the symbol parameter's role in the sample phase and its relation to evaluate_symbol. The phase enum is listed but not detailed; the flow description compensates partially.

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 explicitly states the tool's role as the entry point and subscription funnel for the agent, with a clear verb+resource ('pitch' as intro). It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting that other tools like evaluate_symbol are paid and used for other purposes.

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 clearly states 'your first call to this agent MUST be pitch' and provides explicit guidance on when to use it and how to exit (interest:false). It also mentions that for non-sample symbols, evaluate_symbol should be used, offering an alternative.

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 description carries full burden. It mentions 'FREE' and 'no payment needed', which is behavioral, but does not disclose auth needs, rate limits, or side effects. For a simple feedback tool, it is adequate but lacks depth.

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?

Two concise sentences with no redundant information. Every phrase adds value: 'FREE', 'after using our signals', 'score 1-10 plus pros and cons'.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and simple tool, description covers purpose and key parameters. However, it does not clarify whether pros/cons are optional or required (schema shows only score required), leaving minor gaps.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, description compensates by mentioning score range (1-10) and pros/cons fields. This adds meaning beyond the schema, but does not detail parameter types or constraints fully.

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 is a feedback tool for rating after using signals, specifying the verb 'leave a rating' and the resource 'score 1-10 plus pros and cons'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'evaluate_symbol' which focus on symbol analysis.

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 implies usage after using signals ('after using our signals'), providing context but not explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives. While siblings differ, no direct comparison is made.

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 payment requirement ($0.01 via x402), trial period, no account needed, and retry header handling. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. Could mention rate limits or error states for 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?

One paragraph with front-loaded purpose. Payment details are necessary but could be separated. 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 purpose, payment, trial, cold start, sibling distinction. Lacks output format description, but no output schema exists. Adequate for a 1-param list tool.

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 schema description coverage 100%. Tool description adds no extra meaning beyond schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Clearly states verb 'scan', resource 'all 45 macro series', and output ordering 'LOWEST... ranked most-low first'. Distinguishes from sibling 'scan_tops' by describing opposite use, and from 'pitch' which tells how many are at bottom.

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?

Provides explicit context: 'BEST COLD START: you do not need to pick a symbol'. Mentions payment and free alternative 'pitch'. Lacks explicit when-not, but sibling names imply when to use the opposite tool.

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 fully carries the burden of disclosure. It details the payment mechanism ($0.01 per call via x402, USDT on X Layer), the first-call trial, and the retry requirement (PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header). It also notes no account/signup needed. No contradictions.

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 relatively long (5 sentences) but each sentence serves a purpose: purpose, payment model, trial, comparison to sibling, and no-account requirement. It is front-loaded with the core action. Slight wordiness does not detract significantly.

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 no output schema, the description explains that the tool returns macro series names ranked highest first, which is adequate. It covers payment, trial, and comparison to pitch. The one-parameter input is simple. Slightly more detail on return fields would improve completeness, but it is sufficient.

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 a single parameter (limit, number, default 5, max 45). The description does not add additional context for this parameter beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline 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 verb (scan), resource (all 45 macro series), and the specific action (return those reading HIGHEST, ranked most-high first). It distinctly separates this tool from its sibling scan_bottoms and from pitch by noting that pitch only provides a count.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling pitch: 'The free pitch tool tells you HOW MANY are at a top right now; this names them.' It also highlights that no symbol selection is needed. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use scenarios but is sufficiently clear for an agent.

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