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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description goes beyond them by adding behavioral context: it is a read-only composite assembled server-side, uncalibrated blocks are labeled, ranking is setup_score-sorted, and it includes a 'not financial advice' disclaimer. This enriches the agent's understanding of output reliability.

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 long but well-structured, starting with a clear hook and then enumerating the included blocks. Every sentence carries meaningful detail, but the density of information and the inline list of underlying tools could be slightly more scannable to aid quick parsing.

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 tool's complexity (aggregating five other tools) and the lack of an output schema, the description provides a thorough picture: it names each projected block, explains the optional coin argument, notes labeling of uncalibrated blocks, and includes a risk disclaimer. The agent gets enough to decide invocation and interpret results.

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 only parameter, 'coin', is optional and has a default of null. The description fully explains its effect: it scopes actionable reads to that coin and adds it to the ranked set while preserving setup_score-sorted ranking. This is far more informative than the bare schema definition.

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 provides a 'one-call morning brief' with specific components: market regime, liquidity read, high-impact events, actionable reads, and trade-plan ranking. It explicitly names the underlying tools it aggregates, distinguishing it from siblings like get_market_regime or rank_trades.

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 (as a morning brief, a single call for a market overview) and explicitly directs users to 'drill into any block with the underlying tool' when more detail is needed. It also clarifies the optional coin argument's scoping behavior, giving practical usage guidance.

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