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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses that the tradeable badge is informational, status is 'accruing' until a minimum sample is reached, and baseline measurement differs by asset class. This adds valuable behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 densely packed but well-structured, with each sentence contributing a distinct fact: scope, baseline, intel-only caveat, status accrual, REST equivalence, and crypto alternative. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no redundant filler.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns, how values are benchmarked, when status becomes reliable, and where to find equivalent or alternative data. This is sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 and only an untyped string parameter, the description supplies the allowed values (stock | index | metal | commodity) and explains how each class is measured. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 defines the tool as a per-non-crypto-asset-class forward-return scoreboard and explicitly enumerates eligible asset classes (stock, index, metal, commodity). It distinguishes itself from siblings by directing crypto-board usage to get_performance or REST /proof, making its scope unmistakable.

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 states this is intel-only and non-crypto is not auto-traded yet, telling the agent when informational use is appropriate. It also names alternatives for the crypto board (get_performance or REST /proof) and points to the equivalent REST endpoint, providing clear when-to-use versus 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.