SCRIPTMASTERLABS — SML ticker-research

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond that: the call costs $0.009 and is paid via x402 at a specific GET endpoint, which is critical for an agent that must be prepared for a payment flow. It does not mention latency, rate limits, or what happens if payment fails, keeping it 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core claim and the content list, with cost and endpoint parenthesized so they don't interrupt the main clause. The raw URL inline is slightly noisy, but every element carries information an agent needs.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the five content blocks the answer contains, which is enough for an agent to decide whether the brief covers its question. Payment and endpoint details fill the other major gap. Only the response format and failure behavior remain unstated.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema coverage ('US equity or ETF ticker', with a pattern constraint), so the schema already does the work. The description adds nothing about symbol handling, invalid-ticker behavior, or whether the ticker applies across all five sub-reports. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 artifact ('all-in-one brief') and enumerates exactly what it contains: regime, trend, levels, options activity, Shortlist status. That enumeration maps directly onto the sibling tools (regime, trend, levels, flow), so an agent can tell this is the aggregate of several siblings rather than a duplicate of any one of them.

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 parenthetical '(cheaper than the five pieces)' gives explicit cost-based guidance to prefer this over calling the individual tools when the full picture is needed. It stops short of stating the inverse case — when you need only one piece, call the cheaper single-purpose sibling — so the routing is implied rather than fully spelled out.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions prices and 402 terms but does not explain what '402 terms' means, whether authentication is required, how the catalog is returned, or any rate limits.

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 short phrase with no wasted words. However, it is so terse that key details are omitted rather than efficiently conveyed.

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 zero-parameter catalog tool with no output schema, the description gives a minimal indication of content (prices, 402 terms) but does not explain the return format or the meaning of '402 terms'. It is adequate but leaves clear gaps.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter meaning to add beyond the empty 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?

The description identifies the resource as a machine-readable catalog containing prices and 402 terms, but it does not state the action (e.g., retrieve, list) or differentiate this tool from the sibling token-risk tools. The purpose is inferable but vague.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the token-risk alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or expected context. The agent must infer usage entirely.

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

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds genuinely useful behavior: the call is metered at $0.004 via x402 and resolved through a specific GET endpoint, and the payload is limited to summary statistics rather than raw chain data. It doesn't cover response latency, failure modes, or what happens on unpaid requests, which keeps it below 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?

Two tight sentences, no filler, and the metric list is compact. The pricing and URL lead the description, which is slightly awkward front-loading of a commercial detail ahead of the functional purpose, though the content itself earns its place.

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-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers the returned fields, the cost, and the scope limit, which is nearly everything an agent needs. Missing only access/payment mechanics (how x402 settlement is actually performed) and any error behavior.

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 100% and there is a single required parameter already documented as "US equity or ETF ticker" with a validating pattern. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Options activity summary" plus a concrete enumeration (upside/downside lean, volume and open-interest ratios, max pain, largest OI strikes, median IV) tells an agent exactly what the tool returns. The trailing "Summary stats only" carves out a scope limit. It stops short of naming how it differs from siblings like levels or brief, so a 4 rather than 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers this is the options-activity product for a ticker. No when-to-use vs when-not guidance, and none of the sibling tools (brief, levels, regime, setup, trend) are referenced as alternatives. The "Summary stats only" phrasing hints at a boundary but doesn't say what to use instead for a full chain.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it is a paid call ($0.004 via x402) with a specific endpoint, and it discloses the shape of the return (nearest level plus a full sorted list with distances in % and ATR). It does not cover failure modes for invalid or unsupported symbols, which keeps it from 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?

Two dense sentences with the identity, cost, and payload contents leading. The endpoint URL is arguably noise for an agent that invokes an MCP tool rather than HTTP, but it is brief and does not obscure the payload description.

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, the description compensates well by enumerating every returned level type and the distance metrics. Combined with a single, fully documented parameter, an agent has enough to call and interpret this tool, with only the lack of sibling routing guidance as a gap.

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 coverage is 100%: the single symbol parameter is documented with a pattern and the note 'US equity or ETF ticker'. The description adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names the resource (key price levels for a ticker) and enumerates the exact contents: nearest level above/below, 20-day and 52-week extremes, pivot/R1/S1, 50/200-day averages. It does not differentiate from siblings such as setup or trend, but an agent can still tell what data comes back.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to any of the six sibling tools. The only usage-relevant facts are the price and endpoint, which describe access mechanics rather than when this tool should be selected over setup, trend, or regime.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds valuable context: the cost ($0.004 via x402) and the exact access URL, plus the data sources and optional ticker behavior. It does not cover rate limits or output format details, but it goes well beyond the safety annotation.

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 front-loaded with purpose and then packs cost, URL, computation details, and parameter behavior into a single dense sentence. Every element serves a purpose, though the parenthetical URL and price slightly interrupt flow.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it defines the output (risk-on/mixed/risk-off score), data sources, optional parameter effect, cost, and access method. It could briefly describe the output structure, but the essential information for correct invocation is present.

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. It explains that the optional 'symbol' parameter adds the ticker's trend and 21-day relative performance, which clarifies the parameter's effect and implies a ticker symbol value. Format constraints are not specified, but the semantic meaning is clear.

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 states a specific verb (provides a market regime score) and resource (risk-on/mixed/risk-off based on SPY/QQQ/IWM/TLT trends and SPY realized volatility). It distinguishes itself from general trend tools by focusing on overall market regime, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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?

Usage is implied: the tool is for assessing market regime, optionally with ticker context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus siblings like 'trend' or 'setup', nor any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the paid endpoint note.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds material context beyond that: a per-call cost of $0.002, the x402 payment mechanism, and the exact GET endpoint. It stops short of covering rate limits, error or payment-failure behavior, or freshness guarantees for 'today's' board.

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?

Two compact sentences with the core purpose and the pricing/endpoint up front, no filler. The second sentence is a compressed fragment list, which is dense but slightly cryptic rather than wasteful.

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-only lookup with no output schema, the description states enough: what question it answers, what fields the result covers, cost, and endpoint. An agent could call it correctly without further information, though it doesn't say what happens for tickers not on the board.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'symbol' parameter is documented in the schema with a pattern and 'US equity or ETF ticker' semantics. The description only says 'ticker', adding no format or edge-case meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific resource ('Shortlist setup status') and enumerates what the answer contains: board membership, which setup, reference/invalidation/objective levels, evidence status. This is clearly separable from siblings like 'levels' or 'brief', though the telegraphic fragment style makes the exact verb ('report') implicit.

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 framing question ('Is this ticker on today's Shortlist paper-research board...') implies the situation that calls for this tool, and 'paper-research' hints at non-trading scope. However, it never says when not to use it or which sibling to pick instead (e.g., 'levels' for raw levels, 'brief' for narrative).

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

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

The annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description usefully adds that the call costs $0.004 via x402 and gives the exact GET endpoint — genuine behavioral context about payment and access that annotations do not cover. It still omits failure behavior when payment is missing and any latency or rate-limit expectations, so it is not fully complete.

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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the purpose and then the concrete outputs; every clause contributes a distinct returned metric. The endpoint URL and price sit awkwardly in the middle of the sentence and interrupt the purpose statement.

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 available, the description compensates by listing the return fields (direction, ADX, RSI, moving-average comparisons, 5/21/63-day returns, ATR%), which is what an agent needs to know what comes back. It remains incomplete on selection guidance versus rival tools and on error/payment-failure behavior.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('US equity or ETF ticker'), so the schema already carries the semantics and the baseline is 3. The description does not mention the symbol argument or the price/format expectations around it, adding nothing beyond 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?

The description names the resource (trend/strength for a ticker) and enumerates the concrete outputs — direction, ADX, RSI state, moving-average deltas, multi-horizon returns, ATR% — so an agent can tell roughly what it computes. It never states an explicit verb ('returns'/'computes') and does not contrast itself with sibling tools like regime or levels, so it stops short of perfect differentiation.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no reference to the alternatives in the sibling set (regime, levels, setup, flow). An agent must infer from the metric list whether this is the right call for a trend question versus a regime or support/resistance question.

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