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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds modest behavioral context by specifying 'latest,' 'trade-derived,' and single-symbol scoping, but it does not explain refresh behavior, data sourcing, or limitations. This is acceptable given the annotations, but not richly transparent.

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 compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and core scope while keeping every word functional. There is no redundancy, and the structure is ideal for quick agent consumption.

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 no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description carries a heavy burden that it does not fully meet. It tells the agent what the tool is broadly for, but not what the response contains or how the optional window affects the result. Given the large sibling set, an agent may still be uncertain whether this tool is the right one for a specific intelligence need.

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 needs to compensate, but it only reinforces the 'symbol' parameter with the phrase 'one symbol.' It does not explain the optional window parameter, its allowed 1m/5m/15m values, or what the window controls. An agent invoking the tool correctly would benefit from knowing that window selects the trade-derived aggregation timeframe.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get the latest trade-derived intelligence for one symbol.' It clearly indicates a single-symbol scope and the 'trade-derived' qualifier helps distinguish it from fundamental or market intelligence siblings. However, 'intelligence' remains somewhat abstract and doesn't define what the returned insight actually is, so it stops 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 'for one symbol' implies a single-asset query, which gives some context, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over related siblings like get_fundamental_intelligence or get_market_intelligence. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so the usage guidance is mostly implied rather than stated.

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