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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining that the tool is deterministic, returns raw indicator values for transparency, and makes no on-chain actions or fees. It also includes an explicit disclaimer that it provides "a suggestion only -- not financial advice, not a trade instruction (DYOR)." These details add behavioral context not captured in the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint annotations, giving the agent a clear picture of the tool's side-effect profile.

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 longer than average but every sentence adds value: it front-loads the core purpose, succinctly explains the output and parameters, notes limitations, and gives workflow context. It is well-structured with clear paragraphs and no filler. The length is justified by the tool's complexity and the need to disclaim financial advice.

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?

The description is remarkably complete given the tool's complexity. It covers the input (asset and timeframe), the output (RegimeSignal fields and raw readings), the operational context (INTELLIGENCE step, pairing with other tools), and the boundaries (read-only, no on-chain action). Since an output schema exists, the description need not repeat return types, but it still provides enough detail to use 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 schema_description_coverage at 0%, the description must compensate for missing parameter details. It explains that "asset is a token mint" and lists valid timeframe values ("1m/5m/15m/1h/4h/1d"), which adds meaning beyond the bare schema types. However, it does not describe lookback_candles or caller_id at all. Since half of the parameters are undocumented in the description, the compensation is incomplete, resulting in a mid-range score.

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's purpose with a specific verb and resource: "Detect the current market regime for a Solana asset." It also distinguishes itself from similar tools by detailing its unique output (RegimeSignal, ADX, +DI/-DI, etc.) and by referencing sibling tools like get_market_briefing and get_ml_signal as complementary, not replacements. The read-only and deterministic nature is also highlighted.

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 provides explicit workflow guidance: "pair with get_market_briefing (macro) + get_ml_signal (forecast)" and states that it feeds strategy choice and direction_mode. It also gives a concrete usage example: "bear + allow_short -> consider a short." It clearly positions itself within the INTELLIGENCE step and even references get_trading_workflow for further context, making when to use this tool unambiguous relative to alternatives.

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