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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral context by saying the data is 24/7 and session-labelled, and clarifies the kind of signal being surfaced. It does not cover return structure or pagination, but for a read-only signal tool this is acceptable.

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 that front-loads the core purpose ('24/7 trade flow') and then elaborates on the session labelling. It contains no filler, though it could be split into two sentences for slightly better scannability.

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 read-only tool with two optional parameterseb and no output schema, the description conveys the main data domain but omits what the limit and window parameters control and what the returned object looks like. The agent can call it correctly based on defaults, but not with full contextual awareness.

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 by explaining limit and window semanticsestr. It does not mention either parameter or how they affect the returned trade flow or sentiment data. The schema shows defaults and enums but provides no semantic meaning beyond allowed values.

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 provides 24/7 trade flow and US equity/ETF sentiment, labelled with the current US market session. The resource and output type are identifiable, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from closely related sibling tools like get_tokenized_stock_premium or get_market_intelligence.

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 contexts: overnight, pre-market, after hours, and weekends, which helps an agent decide when this sentiment/flow tool is relevant. However, it does not state when not to use it or name alternative tools for different data needs.

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