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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the core trading behavior, the neutral band, live vs pinned sentiment sources, and the SEC/discretionary requirement for per-execution user confirmation on tokenized securities. This is substantial, decision-relevant behavioral context.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then trading logic, data source, compliance behavior, prerequisite, and a pointer. Every sentence carries useful information with no 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?

The description covers selection-critical behavior well, but with 0% schema coverage and 13 parameters, it is not fully self-sufficient for invocation. It leans on a sibling tool for risk/direction semantics and leaves several parameters such as usd_per_buy, slippage_bps, source_token, and interval_seconds unexplained.

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 bull_threshold, bear_threshold, and sentiment_score, and points to strategy_dca_create for risk/direction params, but most of the 13 parameters remain effectively undocumented in this tool's own description.

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 function: creating a sentiment strategy that trades an aggregate sentiment score. It also explains the buy/sell threshold logic, which differentiates it from other strategy creation tools. The purpose is 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?

It gives a clear prerequisite ('Call asset_classification first') and a useful cross-reference for risk/direction parameters. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative strategy types, so it stops short of a 5.

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