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

With no annotations, the description still discloses a 5-minute cache, the data window (24h hourly candles), the ATR% bucketing method, cross-instrument comparability of thresholds, and a per-call price of $0.005 USDC via x402. Missing only error/failure behavior and any rate-limit detail beyond cost, which keeps it just short of 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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and output contents, then usage, then cost. Dense but nearly every clause adds information; the opening pair 'Trend and volatility regime' / 'Market regime from...' is mildly redundant, and the BTC/SOL example is slightly verbose.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description fully compensates by explaining the returned fields, the data window, caching, cross-symbol comparability, cost model, and how it combines with siblings. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly 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 single `symbol` parameter is fully documented by the schema enum, so baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine semantic value: the same trend/volatility thresholds apply to every instrument, so readings are directly comparable (BTC 'high' = SOL 'high'). That is a non-obvious interpretation aid not present in 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?

States a specific verb+resource (market regime over last 24h of hourly candles) and enumerates the exact outputs: trend via EMA50/EMA200, ATR%-based volatility bucket, RSI, and EMAs. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_signal_bias (direction) and get_support_resistance (levels), so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use guidance ('risk sizing or entry timing, e.g. avoid new entries while volatility is extreme') and names the complementary siblings with their distinct roles. It also states what the tool is NOT ('on its own it gives context, not a trade direction'), an explicit boundary against misuse.

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