DeltaSignal ATLAS-7

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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the subscription requirement, an access-control constraint not present in annotations or schema. This is useful behavioral context, though no other behaviors (e.g., default limits, stress_field behavior) are disclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence of five words. It contains no filler and is easy to parse. Every word contributes to the core meaning.

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?

While schema and annotations are strong, the tool exists in a large ecosystem of similar alpha-related tools. The description is too terse to provide adequate context for an agent to distinguish it from siblings, understand what 'semantic' means in this context, or anticipate invocation boundaries. More detail would improve completeness.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage: limit, stress_field, and signal_filter are each documented clearly. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics. With high schema coverage, the baseline of 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?

The description 'Subscription-gated semantic alpha-candidate screen' clearly states this is a read-only screen for identifying alpha candidates via semantic criteria. It is specific about the resource and function, but lacks explicit differentiation from the many similar sibling tools like deltasignal_alpha_opportunities and atlas7_signal_board, so it doesn't earn a 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. The description only mentions 'subscription-gated', which is a prerequisite, but does not explain use cases, exclusions, or how it relates to other alpha screening tools. This leaves the agent without sufficient direction.

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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, which cover the safety profile. The description adds that the tool is 'subscription-gated', an access-control behavioral trait not present in annotations. This is useful additional context, though it does not explain failure modes for unauthorized access or other behavioral details.

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 sentence: 'Subscription-gated archive and history search.' It is immediately front-loaded with the primary action and scope, contains no redundant wording, and earns its place by being maximally concise.

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 existence of an output schema and comprehensive parameter descriptions, the description is adequate for a simple read-only search tool. However, it lacks context about what 'archive and history' refers to and how it relates to the numerous sibling tools, leaving some ambiguity for an agent trying to select the correct tool.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (cik, limit, ticker), so the schema already documents parameter meanings. The description adds no further parameter-level detail, so it meets the baseline without adding extra value.

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 the tool performs a 'search' on 'archive and history', which is a clear verb and resource, but it remains vague about what exactly is being searched (filings, articles, signals?). It does not differentiate from sibling search tools like atlas7_semantic_query or atlas7_recent_history, so it only partially clarifies purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided regarding when to use this tool instead of alternatives. The phrase 'subscription-gated' hints at an access requirement but does not explain when this search is appropriate or when another tool should be chosen. There are no explicit use cases or exclusions.

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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that the data is 'filing-backed' and 'subscription-gated,' which gives some behavioral hints (provenance and potential access failures), but it is minimal. It does not explain what happens when the subscription gate is missing, how results are returned, or any other operational traits. This falls short of the lower bar set by the annotations.

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 four-word noun phrase, which is concise but not appropriately specified. It sacrifices clarity for brevity, leaving the reader to infer the action and scope. A complete sentence with a verb would be more useful at similar length.

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?

While an output schema exists (so return structure is covered), the description does not explain what 'fundamentals' actually includes, how to combine ticker vs. cik, or what the limit parameter controls in practice. For a tool with 3 optional parameters and a rich set of siblings, this description is too thin to give the agent enough context to select and invoke it 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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters (cik, limit, ticker) with individual descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-level semantics, but the schema already provides enough meaning for an agent to know what each parameter does. No enhancement or correction is offered.

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 'Subscription-gated filing-backed fundamentals surface' uses the noun 'surface' rather than a verb, so it does not clearly state what the tool does. It hints at a data source (filings) and access restriction (subscription-gated) but never says it retrieves or lists fundamentals, leaving the purpose ambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like atlas7_company_report_inputs or deltasignal_company_fundamentals.

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 many sibling tools. No mention of use cases, prerequisites (like a subscription), or alternatives. The description is purely a label with no directional context for the agent.

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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is well-covered. The description does add 'subscription-gated,' which is a useful access-control trait, but it adds no other behavioral context such as return format, pagination, or what 'input bundle' concretely contains. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 extremely short and front-loaded, with no filler words. However, 'Company Report input bundle' is near-redundant with the tool name, leaving 'subscription-gated' and 'structured' as the only real additions. It is concise, but the conciseness comes at the cost of substantive information.

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?

While the annotations and input schema are strong, the description does not explain what the tool is for, when to call it, or how it relates to sibling report tools. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the core purpose and selection criteria remain ambiguous, making the description incomplete for an agent.

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 input schema fully documents all three parameters (cik, limit, ticker) with clear descriptions, so the schema coverage is 100%. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable but not helpful; baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Subscription-gated structured Company Report input bundle' is a noun phrase that mostly restates the tool name (company_report_inputs = Company Report input bundle). It lacks a clear verb or action (e.g., fetch, retrieve, compile), so an agent cannot tell what the tool actually does or how it differs from similar sibling tools like atlas7_morning_brief_inputs.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description mentions 'subscription-gated,' which indicates an access restriction, but it does not state when to use this tool vs alternatives, what scenarios it is intended for, or any exclusions. An agent has no basis for selecting this over related report/fundamental tools.

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 description adds context beyond the annotations by noting subscription-gating and that raw SQL is not exposed. It also clarifies the output is a public plan and fingerprint. It does not detail error behavior or plan structure, but the read-only and idempotent hints are already in annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and outcome. Every phrase adds value without redundant elaboration.

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 read-only annotations, full schema, and presence of an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It conveys access gating, return type, and a key privacy guarantee, though it could mention that this is a pre-execution validation step compared to running the query itself.

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%, so the schema fully documents each parameter. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond labeling the query as 'governed semantic query,' which does not materially improve understanding of the parameters.

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 validates a governed semantic query and returns a public plan and SQL fingerprint, which distinguishes it from query execution tools like atlas7_semantic_query. The verb 'validation' plus the resource and output make the purpose unequivocal.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'subscription-gated validation' implies a prerequisite but does not say when to prefer this tool over atlas7_semantic_query or other siblings, nor when not to use it.

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 read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds 'subscription-gated' as a behavioral constraint and clarifies the stress domain scope, but provides no additional detail on pagination, ordering, or output characteristics beyond the schema.

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 concise phrase with no wasted words. It front-loads the key access constraint ('subscription-gated') and the stress domain, making it efficient for quick scanning.

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 has an output schema and strong annotations, the description is minimally adequate but lacks comparative context with sibling stress tools. It could benefit from a sentence detailing typical use cases or data scope to fully inform an agent.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so all three optional parameters are already documented. The description adds no extra meaning on parameter usage or interpretation, aligning with the baseline expectation when schema is comprehensive.

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 identifies a read-only 'view' focused on covenant, debt, and liquidity stress, which distinguishes it from general stress tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate between similar siblings like atlas7_top_stress or deltasignal_covenant_stress beyond naming the specific domains.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like atlas7_top_stress or deltasignal_covenant_stress. The 'subscription-gated' hint implies access requirements but does not explain scenarios or prerequisites.

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 and destructiveHint=false, so no safety contradiction exists. The description adds the subscription-gating behavior, which is useful context beyond annotations, but it does not mention what the returned lineage looks like or whether results are hierarchical, paginated, or empty.

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 compact, front-loaded phrase with no filler words. The leading "Subscription-gated" immediately flags the key access constraint, though the brevity contributes to the overall vagueness.

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?

Even with the output schema and annotations, the description is too thin to give an agent a full picture of what a "provenance lineage drilldown" returns, how it relates to the 70+ sibling tools, or what constitutes a valid invocation when all parameters are optional. The sibling tool atlas7_lineage_audit and evidence-comparison tools create potential overlap that the description does not resolve.

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%, with all five parameters described as optional filters (CIK, ticker, accession, fact_name, limit). The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, but the schema already carries the burden, so a baseline score of 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?

The description identifies a read-only drilldown into evidence and provenance lineage, but it uses the vague noun phrase "drilldown" rather than a clear verb+resource statement. It does not distinguish this tool from sibling atlas7_lineage_audit or the several evidence-comparison tools, so the purpose remains ambiguous.

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 only usage hint is "Subscription-gated," which describes an access restriction rather than when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling tools like atlas7_lineage_audit or deltasignal_compare_claim_to_evidence.

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 convey read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: subscription gating and the explicit exclusion of raw SQL. It also enumerates the explanation contents, going beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 entire description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently captures the gating requirement, the output components, and a key boundary (no raw SQL).

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details are covered. The description provides the core purpose, access restriction, and a key non-disclosure constraint. However, the term 'signal' is ambiguous and the description does not indicate how to select a signal, though the schema hints through model_key and intent.

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%, so all six parameters are already documented. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 explains fields, evidence requirements, and SQL fingerprint, using a specific verb ('explain') and resource ('signal'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like atlas7_field_catalog or atlas7_evidence_lineage, which could overlap in purpose.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions 'subscription-gated', which is an access constraint rather than a usage guideline. No 'use when' or 'instead of' language is present.

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 description adds behavioral context not in annotations by indicating the tool is 'Subscription-gated', which implies access control requirements. It also scopes the operation to a single governed model. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the additional context is valuable but not exhaustive.

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, compact sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads key qualifiers ('Subscription-gated') and lists the catalog types efficiently, making every word useful.

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 simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. However, terms like 'evidence contract' are not explained, and subscription-gating details are vague, though these are minor given the supporting structured data.

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 schema fully covers the single parameter model_key with a description. The description's phrase 'one governed semantic model' aligns with this parameter but does not add new meaning or syntax details beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies due to high schema coverage.

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 explains the tool's scope—field, metric, filter, sort, and evidence contract for one governed semantic model—which expands on the title. It does not use an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'list', but the title's 'catalog' implies this. It distinguishes from siblings like atlas7_model_catalog by specifying 'for one governed semantic model'.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as atlas7_model_catalog or atlas7_semantic_query. It only implies usage for a governed semantic model, with no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative comparisons.

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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'subscription-gated' and 'canonical', providing access-control and authority context, but does not describe behavior around missing parameters or response characteristics.

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 sentence of eight words, with no fluff. Key qualifiers like subscription-gated and canonical are efficiently packed into one thought.

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 read-only lookup with an output schema, the description is largely sufficient, but it lacks guidance on edge cases (e.g., neither ticker nor CIK supplied), subscription enforcement specifics, or how it relates to sibling tools. This creates a gap for an agent choosing among many ATLAS-7 tools.

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 schema fully documents all three parameters with descriptions and constraints (e.g., CIK when ticker is not supplied, limit maximum with min/max). The description reuses ticker/CIK but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 a lookup operation for canonical issuer identity by ticker or CIK, naming the resource and the two key identifiers. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like company fundamentals or issuer signal.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as atlas7_quick_ticker_check or atlas7_company_fundamentals. The purpose is clear, but there is no explicit when/when-not or mention of alternative tools.

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 indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds 'subscription-gated' as a behavioral constraint, which is useful but minimal. No contradiction with annotations.

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, concise line that front-loads key details. It avoids fluff, but its brevity leaves out important context about the signal nature, which slightly reduces its completeness.

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 complexity of the domain and the many sibling tools, this description is under-specified. It does not explain what an 'issuer signal' is, how it relates to other signal tools, or what the output contains, even though an output schema exists.

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%, so parameters are fully documented. The description's mention of 'by ticker or CIK' reinforces the schema but adds no additional meaning beyond what is already provided.

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 tool as an 'issuer signal' gated by subscription, and specifies input by ticker or CIK. This clearly states the resource and the primary input modes, though it lacks a verb and does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like atlas7_explain_signal.

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 alternatives such as atlas7_signal_board or atlas7_explain_signal. The 'subscription-gated' phrase implies an access requirement but does not provide context for selection.

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 and non-destructive, and the description adds the 'subscription-gated' access requirement, which is a behavioral constraint beyond annotations. It also explicitly labels the operation as an 'audit', setting expectations for a diagnostic read-only action. However, it doesn't describe any return behavior or edge cases, but annotations cover the safety 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 extremely concise and front-loaded, using a single phrase without padding. It's appropriately brief but slightly under-specified for a complex tool, so not a perfect 5.

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?

Despite a rich set of annotations and an output schema, the description is too terse to provide sufficient context for an agent to know when this lineage audit differs from the similarly named atlas7_evidence_lineage or how to interpret the audit results. It only covers the subscription constraint and a high-level label.

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?

All five parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description doesn't need to add semantics. It provides no additional parameter information, but the schema is sufficient.

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 'calculation lineage audit' with the verb 'audit', clearly indicating a read-only investigation of calculation lineage. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'atlas7_evidence_lineage', which also concerns lineage.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to prefer this tool over alternatives like atlas7_evidence_lineage or how to handle the subscription gate. The description is purely declarative and lacks usage context.

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 clearly declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds only 'Subscription-gated,' which provides a useful access-control context, but it does not describe any other behavioral traits such as data scope or result characteristics.

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 concise in length but is a vague noun phrase that fails to provide actionable information. It is under-specified rather than appropriately concise; it does not earn its place because it adds little value over the title.

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?

Despite good annotations and an output schema, the description leaves the core function of 'market context' entirely ambiguous. An agent cannot determine what this tool returns or when to select it among the many overlapping sibling tools, making the description inadequate for selection.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions ('Maximum rows' and 'Optional market instrument'), so the schema already provides the necessary semantics. The tool description adds no additional meaning, examples, or constraints 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 restates the title ('ATLAS-7 market context' becomes 'market and instrument overlay context') without a concrete verb or specific action. It is essentially a noun phrase with no clear statement of what the tool does, making it a tautology.

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 or how it differs from alternatives. The description provides no context, exclusions, or comparison to the many sibling market/context tools.

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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful behavioral constraint—'Subscription-gated'—which is not present in annotations. However, no other behavioral traits like rate limits, pagination, or data scope details are disclosed.

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 sentence and not overly long, but it is a dense noun phrase lacking a verb. It packs several concepts into an awkward structure, which marginally hurts readability. It is not wastefully verbose, but could be clearer with a verb like 'Retrieves' or 'Displays.'

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 presence of an output schema and a single parameter with full schema description, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it is ambiguous about what 'health surface' means operationally, and it does not cover how the listed components (semantic metadata, source freshness, row-count, evidence-contract) are presented. The description is adequate but leaves room for clarification.

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 'limit' is fully documented in the schema with 'Maximum health rows' and min/max values, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description does not add any additional meaning or context for the parameter, which is acceptable given the schema already explains it clearly.

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 lists specific subject areas ('semantic metadata, source freshness, row-count, and evidence-contract health') but lacks a clear verb or action, using the ambiguous noun 'surface.' It does not distinguish from sibling tools like atlas7_readiness or atlas7_lineage_audit, which could also relate to health checks.

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 alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions. The description is purely descriptive of what the tool concerns, not when it should be invoked.

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 description adds the 'subscription-gated' access constraint, which is useful behavioral context not in annotations. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description does not elaborate on output volume or potential errors, which is acceptable given the strong annotation coverage.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key attribute 'Subscription-gated catalog' and then enumerates the contents. Every word carries meaning; there is no redundancy or 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?

For a no-parameter, read-only catalog tool, the description is sufficiently complete. The output schema exists and would specify return values, so the description need not detail them. The catalog's scope is clearly defined, though it could optionally hint at typical use cases.

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 input schema has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description lists the catalog's contents (models, intents, evidence requirements, freshness policies), which effectively communicates what the tool provides despite having no parameters.

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 identifies the tool as a catalog of governed semantic models, supported intents, evidence requirements, and freshness policies. It distinguishes from siblings like atlas7_field_catalog by specifying model-level governance and policy content, though it lacks an explicit action verb like 'list' or 'retrieve'.

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 states what the tool is but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites (beyond subscription) or scenarios where this catalog would be preferred over sibling tools like atlas7_metadata_health or atlas7_field_catalog.

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, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds 'Subscription-gated', which is a useful access-control trait not covered by annotations. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as whether the bundle is limited, how it is structured, or any rate limits, so it adds only modest value beyond the annotations.

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 only a single noun phrase and is under-specified, similar to the 'Process' example. It is not verbose, but it fails to provide a clear sentence with a verb or any structural breakdown, making it more of a terse label than a helpful 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?

While the output schema and annotations enrich the tool's context, the description still fails to state the core purpose or expected output of the 'Morning Brief input bundle.' Given the large number of sibling tools, the missing clue about what this bundle contains and when to use it makes the overall description incomplete for an agent to select and invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and every parameter has a description (limit, stress_field, signal_filter). The description itself adds no parameter-level semantics, but because the schema already documents all three parameters, the baseline of 3 applies. There is no extra context about how the parameters relate to the Morning Brief bundle, but the schema covers the essential meaning.

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 is a noun phrase ('Subscription-gated structured Morning Brief input bundle') with no action verb, so it does not explicitly state what the tool does (e.g., 'retrieve', 'list', 'fetch'). It implies it provides a bundle of inputs for the Morning Brief, but this is vague and does not clearly distinguish it from siblings like 'atlas7_company_report_inputs' or 'deltasignal_morning_brief'.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'Subscription-gated' which hints at access prerequisites, but it does not state use cases, exclusions, or relative advantages over sibling tools that also relate to Morning Brief data (e.g., deltasignal_morning_brief, atlas7_semantic_query).

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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'Subscription-gated' access requirement, which is a useful behavioral trait beyond annotations.

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 extremely brief—a single noun phrase—with no filler. However, it is under-specified to the point of being more of a label than a complete description, though this doesn't harm conciseness.

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 an output schema present and simple optional params, the description still lacks critical context: what 'relative pressure' means, how peer comparison is structured, or any limitations. This is insufficient for an agent to choose this tool over peers like atlas7_pressure_board or deltasignal_peer_ranking.

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 covers all three parameters (cik, limit, ticker) with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific details, so 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?

The description is a noun phrase—'Subscription-gated peer ranking and relative pressure'—that identifies the resource but lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'compares.' It conveys the topic (peer ranking, relative pressure) but doesn't clearly distinguish from siblings like deltasignal_peer_ranking or atlas7_pressure_board.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only hint is 'Subscription-gated,' which implies a prerequisite but doesn't specify use cases or exclusions.

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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, providing a safe read profile. The description adds 'Subscription-gated' (access control) and clarifies MVP limitations, which is valuable context beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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: one states the core function and access constraint, the second states the MVP limitation. Zero waste, front-loaded with the key phrase 'Subscription-gated saved watchlist analysis.'

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 tool has a simple parameter set (3 optional), full schema description, comprehensive annotations, and an output schema. The description covers the unique access gate and current limitation, which is complete for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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%, so schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds that ticker and CIK are filters and that no parameters are required (implied by 'accepts ticker or CIK filters'), reinforcing the optionality. It doesn't add syntax details but doesn't need to given full schema coverage.

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 'Subscription-gated saved watchlist analysis' uses a specific verb ('analysis') and resource ('saved watchlist'), and distinguishes from siblings by noting the subscription gate. However, it doesn't explicitly say what analysis is performed or how it differs from 'quick_ticker_check' or 'signal_board'.

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 notes 'MVP accepts ticker or CIK filters until watchlist persistence is enabled,' which offers context for when this tool is usable and the current limitation. It does not name alternatives or explicitly state when-not-to-use, but sibling names and context signals suggest it is a specialized watchlist tool.

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 cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds 'subscription-gated' and 'semantic', which are minor hints about access and ranking, but it does not explain output format, filters, or side effects. The added value is minimal and leaves the tool's behavior largely undisclosed.

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 sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It is a vague noun phrase that does not communicate the tool's function. The words do not 'earn their place' because they add little clarity beyond the title.

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?

Although annotations and schema are rich and an output schema exists, the description fails to convey the core purpose of the tool. An agent cannot determine what a 'pressure board' returns, what inputs matter, or when to invoke it, leaving the context incomplete.

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?

Input schema covers all three optional parameters (limit, stress_field, signal_filter) with clear descriptions, providing 100% coverage. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information, so the baseline score of 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 'Subscription-gated semantic pressure board' is a restatement of the title with two adjectives, lacking any verb or action. It does not explain what the tool actually does, such as displaying semantic stress metrics, and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like atlas7_signal_board.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'Subscription-gated' refers to access control, not usage context. There are no exclusions, alternative tool mentions, or scenarios indicating appropriate use.

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 indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds 'Subscription-gated', which is a useful access constraint, but it does not disclose other behavioral traits like response format, latency expectations, or whether it accepts any input beyond the schema. It avoids contradicting annotations but adds minimal value.

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, which is concise in word count but severely under-specified. It does not use sentences to explain anything meaningful. This is not true conciseness; it is a lack of necessary detail, similar to a tautology.

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 3 parameters, no required fields, an output schema, and a large set of sibling tools, the description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain what 'semantic ticker triage' means, what inputs are relevant (ticker vs CIK), or how the output relates to other tools. The presence of an output schema does not excuse the lack of purpose and usage context.

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%, with each parameter (cik, limit, ticker) clearly described in the schema. The description does not add further meaning beyond what the schema provides, but since the schema is sufficient, a baseline score of 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?

The phrase 'semantic ticker triage' is vague and does not clearly state what the tool does. It fails to distinguish itself from the sibling 'deltasignal_quick_ticker_check', which appears to be a similarly named tool. The verb 'triage' implies prioritization or screening, but the overall purpose remains ambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites (e.g., having a subscription), or when to prefer another tool such as atlas7_semantic_query or deltasignal_quick_ticker_check.

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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds useful access-control and subscription-gating context, as well as noting the availability of a legacy path through x402. It does not over-explain behavior, but it does add meaningful real-world constraints beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences and front-loads the core purpose ('Subscription-gated semantic readiness and entitlement status'). The second sentence adds necessary differentiation without waste. Every clause 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?

Given a single optional parameter, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, access control, and the relationship to an alternative. It does not elaborate on what 'semantic readiness' means, but the output schema and context signals substantially mitigate that ambiguity.

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 schema has 100% parameter coverage, including a clear description for 'limit' as 'Maximum readiness rows.' The description itself adds no further parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the schema already carries the explanatory burden.

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 identifies the tool as providing 'semantic readiness and entitlement status' and distinguishes it from the sibling 'deltasignal_readiness' by noting that the existing DeltaSignal readiness remains available via x402. It names a specific, gated resource and separates it from alternatives.

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 explicitly explains when this tool applies: it is the semantic surface requiring a Marketplace subscription, while 'Existing DeltaSignal readiness remains available through x402.' This provides a direct comparison to the main alternative and guides the agent to the appropriate tool based on entitlement.

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 indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds one useful behavioral trait: access is subscription-gated. It also hints at temporal scoping ('recent') and PIT nature, but lacks detail on what 'recent' means, how results are paginated, or what happens without a subscription. No contradiction with annotations.

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 extremely brief—a single six-word phrase. It has no redundant words and is front-loaded with the key access constraint. However, it is under-specified to the point of being a fragment rather than a complete sentence, so it sacrifices clarity for brevity.

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 moderate complexity (3 optional params, output schema present, many sibling tools), the description is too thin. It fails to clarify what a 'trajectory' consists of, the meaning of 'recent', or how this differs from closely related tools. The output schema fills return-value gaps, but usage context remains incomplete.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for each of the three optional parameters (cik, limit, ticker). The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to explain parameters further.

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 is a noun phrase, not a verb-based statement. 'Recent point-in-time issuer trajectory' gives some idea of returning a historical sequence for an issuer, but it does not clearly state the action (e.g., 'retrieve' or 'list') and is close to the title 'recent history'. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like atlas7_issuer_signal or deltasignal_atlas_history.

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 vs alternatives. The only hint is 'Subscription-gated', which implies a prerequisite but does not explain why an agent would choose this tool over similar history- or trajectory-related siblings.

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 description adds meaningful context beyond the annotations: 'Subscription-gated' indicates access restrictions, and 'Returns ATLAS evidence envelopes only; raw SQL is never returned' discloses output format and a strong guarantee about no SQL leakage. This goes beyond the readOnly/idempotent hints.

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 two short sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose ('Subscription-gated governed semantic query') and immediately convey the key output constraint. No redundant or unnecessary wording.

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 presence of an output schema, rich annotations, and fully documented parameters, the description is minimally sufficient but lacks usage context (e.g., when to choose this over compile_query, what 'governed' implies for permissions). It does not fully address navigation among the many sibling tools.

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 input schema already describes all 6 parameters with meaningful descriptions (e.g., 'Optional validated sort fields', 'Allowlisted semantic intent'), so the tool description does not need to add parameter-level details. As schema coverage is 100%, a baseline score of 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?

The description states it is a 'semantic query' that returns 'ATLAS evidence envelopes only,' which specifies the tool's action and output. It distinguishes from raw SQL tools by clarifying output, but the exact scope ('evidence envelopes') is somewhat narrow and not differentiated from sibling tools like atlas7_compile_query.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description mentions 'Subscription-gated governed' but does not state when this tool is preferred over atlas7_compile_query or other query tools, nor any exclusions or conditions.

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 cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the board is subscription-gated, which is valuable access context, but it does not disclose other behavioral traits like sorting, default limits, or error handling.

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, dense sentence with no wasted words, making it concise and front-loaded. It could be slightly more substantive, but this dimension rewards brevity.

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 tool is simple (no required params, output schema present), so a short description can suffice. However, the description does not clarify what a 'signal board' contains, what the output represents, or how subscription gating affects invocation, leaving notable 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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all three optional parameters, so the schema carries the semantic load. The description provides no additional parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable given the high coverage baseline.

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 tool as a signal board for latest issuer signals and adds the subscription-gating constraint, which suggests its purpose. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'fetch' or 'list', leaving the action implicit and only weakly distinguishing it from similar boards like pressure_board or alpha_signals.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. There is no mention of when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., atlas7_pressure_board, atlas7_top_stress), no prerequisites beyond subscription, and no exclusions.

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 cover safety (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). The description adds 'subscription-gated,' an access constraint not captured in annotations, which is useful. However, it does not mention pagination, filtering behavior, or return format, so it adds limited behavioral depth beyond annotations.

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 concise phrase with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the key qualifier 'subscription-gated' and scopes the resource. While it is a fragment rather than a full sentence, it is highly efficient and avoids verbosity.

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 4 optional parameters, annotations, and an output schema, the description still leaves major gaps: what kinds of themes/concepts/taxonomies are included, how filtering works, what the output looks like, and when this tool is appropriate. The description is too sparse to be contextually complete for an agent.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all four optional parameters (cik, limit, theme, ticker). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies: the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 it is for 'theme, concept, and taxonomy discovery,' which identifies the resource type and adds 'subscription-gated' as a qualifier. However, it uses a noun phrase rather than a clear verb+resource structure and does not differentiate from sibling tools like atlas7_semantic_query or atlas7_archive_search.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or how it compares to alternatives. There is no mention of preferred scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering safety. The description adds 'subscription-gated' as an access constraint and 'semantic' as a methodology hint, but does not explain the ranking behavior (e.g., ordering, filtering). No contradiction exists.

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 four-word phrase with zero wasted words, making it extremely concise. However, it is a fragment rather than a sentence, which slightly reduces clarity.

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 tool has no required parameters and has an output schema, so the description's main job is to explain its role. It fails to specify what 'top stress' means, how results are ranked, or when to use it among many similar siblings. This is inadequate for an agent to select it confidently.

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% — all three optional parameters (limit, stress_field, signal_filter) have descriptions. The description itself adds no parameter-specific context, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the parameters.

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 'Subscription-gated semantic top-stress ranking' indicates a ranking tool but lacks a verb and a clear object (what is being ranked). It is not a tautology, but it does not distinguish itself from similar siblings like deltasignal_top_stressed or atlas7_signal_board.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. 'Subscription-gated' hints at access constraints but does not clarify use cases or exclusions. With many sibling tools, this omission is significant.

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?

Even though annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, the description adds beyond that: it states the tool performs one HTTPS read, has no destructive side effects, and does not handle wallets, payments, orders, or account state. It also notes deterministic scoring and default operating-company behavior, which gives the agent a complete safety and side-effect picture.

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 dense but well-organized, with clear labels ('Parameters:', 'Behavior:') and front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds distinct information: purpose, return fields, parameter semantics, safety behavior, and usage caveats. Despite being longer than a typical description, no sentence is wasted and it remains scannable.

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 7-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what the tool does, what it returns, how to use each parameter, the default behavior, side-effect profile, and interpretation guidance. The output schema handles return structure, so the description's field list is a bonus reinforcement. It is complete for its complexity.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by summarizing the parameters in a compact way ('limit is 1-100; source_date replays a known YYYY-MM-DD slice; risk_tier... narrow the screen') and clarifies default behavior (operating-company issuers, and when to use include_funds or issuer_type). This is more than just redundant paraphrasing, so a 4 is warranted.

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 function: screening and ranking the DeltaSignal issuer universe by alpha score. It specifies the verb (rank), resource (active issuer universe), and scope (read-only, Phase 1 alpha score), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like alpha_signals or alpha_sweep by focusing on opportunity screening and explicitly listing the output fields.

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 clear usage context: when to include funds (only when the user asks for ETF, trust, fund, or product-vehicle screens) and how to interpret high scores (drilldown candidates, not standalone conclusions). It does not explicitly name alternative tools for exclusions, but the 'only when' language gives strong directional guidance. This is clear context without explicit sibling alternatives.

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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those: 'it performs one HTTPS read, has no destructive side effects, and does not change board scoring, payments, wallets, files, or account state.' It also notes that source_date 'replays a known slice,' which is a behavioral trait not captured by annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured: it starts with the core purpose, then parameter summaries, then behavior, then usage scenarios. Every sentence carries information—no fluff or filler. The length is justified by the tool's diagnostic nature and the need to explain parameters and usage. It is front-loaded with the most important 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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 optional parameters, output schema present, annotations provided, and a clear sibling relationship), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, parameters, behavior, and when to use it relative to siblings. The output schema handles return-value details, so the description doesn't need to. It also addresses safety and idempotency, making it complete for agent invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value: 'limit is 1-100 for bounded samples' clarifies the purpose, 'source_date replays a known YYYY-MM-DD slice' explains the replay behavior, 'issuer_type narrows the audit' describes the filtering role, and 'include_rows=true attaches full publishable audit rows and should be used only for explicit debugging' provides contextual guidance. This goes beyond the schema's basic field descriptions, though it doesn't fully elaborate on all parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'explain why the alpha-opportunity board includes, excludes, or demotes rows.' It clearly identifies the tool as a read-only diagnostic for the alpha-opportunity board and names the output summaries (issuer-type, identity, quality-gate, raw-alpha-versus-board-rank), distinguishing it from siblings like deltasignal_alpha_opportunities and deltasignal_alpha_sweep.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'after deltasignal_alpha_opportunities or deltasignal_alpha_sweep when the user asks why a high raw alpha row is missing, why ETF/trust/fund rows are excluded by default, why a row was demoted, or whether a screen is safe to summarize.' It also provides an exclusion: 'include_rows=true ... should be used only for explicit debugging.' These are concrete, actionable guidelines.

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 readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints, but the description adds valuable context beyond those: 'performs one HTTPS read, has no destructive side effects, does not trade, does not store user data, and does not handle wallet secrets.' It also clarifies the source_date behavior (replay-only), which is not implied by the schema alone.

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 four sentences, each earning its place. It front-loads the main purpose, then compactly covers parameters, behavior, and usage guidelines. No filler or redundancy beyond minimal necessary restatement of annotations.

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 has an output schema and strong annotations, the description still provides a thorough summary of return contents (resilience, treasury pressure, regime fit, phase-one indicators, source date), clear usage boundaries, and alternative tool references. An agent has all information needed to select and invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds slight nuance (e.g., source_date is for replaying a known slice), but the schema already covers normalization, format, examples, and the asset-symbol caution. No additional semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'retrieve DeltaSignal ATLAS-7 alpha signals for one crypto public company ticker.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming alternatives (covenant_stress, company_fundamentals) and specifying the target tickers (COIN, MSTR, etc.).

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use it for research triage on supported public-company tickers' and 'do not pass crypto asset symbols unless they are listed public-company tickers.' It also states when to use alternatives: 'call readiness first if you need service freshness, use covenant_stress for covenant-only questions, use company_fundamentals for raw SEC XBRL facts.'

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 description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond annotations: it performs three internal HTTPS reads, has no destructive side effects, never calls issuer-level tools, and preserves partial results if one internal call fails. This goes far beyond the readOnly/idempotent hints and gives the agent a solid mental model of the tool's execution.

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?

Despite being dense, every sentence carries unique information: purpose, internal call plan, parameter restrictions, behavioral guarantees, and usage cues. It is front-loaded with the primary use case, and there is no redundancy or 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 fully covers what the agent needs to know: what the tool does, when to use it, how it behaves, what parameters are allowed, and how to interpret results ('screen requiring issuer drilldown'). Given the output schema exists and annotations are rich, nothing important is missing.

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% for the single parameter, but the description adds critical constraints: output_mode only accepts 'compact', and it explicitly forbids passing limit, offset, ticker, source_date, or issuer filters because the preset owns those arguments internally. This goes beyond schema descriptions and prevents common misuse.

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 identifies this as a read-only composite workflow tool for opportunity and alpha screening, specifying the exact universe and the internal components (readiness, alpha_opportunities, daily_changes). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the preset call plan and noting it never calls issuer-level tools, making its role in the broader toolset unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use it when the user asks for alpha opportunities, opportunity sweep, clean alpha board, or names worth follow-up research.' It also tells the agent what not to pass (limit, offset, ticker, etc.) and warns that results are a screen requiring issuer drilldown, effectively steering toward follow-up tools.

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 provide read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive hints, but the description adds valuable specifics: it 'does not call Grok, does not invent evidence, does not mutate Substack or Azure Blob, and does not treat TripCodes as official SEC identities.' It also explains behavior like resolving TF-SUB objects and marking missing evidence explicitly, which goes well beyond the annotations.

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 dense paragraph but front-loads the most important usage information. It is broken into logical sections ('Parameters:', 'Behavior:') inside the prose, and every sentence adds value without unnecessary fluff. Slightly verbose but still efficient.

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 25 optional parameters, no required fields, an output schema, and a complex synthesis workflow, the description covers the key trigger, parameter usage, HUT special case, behavior guarantees, and return sections. It could mention failure modes when Azure Blob is not configured, but it does specify the conditional ('when Azure Blob is configured'), so it is fairly complete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful guidance by naming key parameters (article_tripcode, tripcode, prior_article_tripcodes, linked_xbrl_tripcodes, filing_tripcodes, ticker) and explaining the HUT fallback when filing_tripcodes is omitted. This clarifies parameter relationships beyond what the schema descriptions provide.

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: 'Use this read-only synthesis tool when a subscriber gives Codex or Claude Code a DeltaSignal article TripCode and asks for the thesis map behind the article.' It names a specific verb ('synthesis'), resource ('thesis map'), and trigger context, distinguishing it from sibling tools like compare_claim_to_evidence.

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 usage context: when a subscriber requests a thesis map with an article TripCode. It also clarifies parameter preferences ('pass article_tripcode or tripcode') and the HUT fallback with the seeded filing pack. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, so a small deduction.

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?

Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses the underlying data source (Azure Blob), the exact fields it reports, and explicitly states it does not access raw issuer evidence or run the audit. This adds valuable behavioral context the annotations do not convey.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, data source/outputs, behavior and usage. Front-loaded with the primary action, and no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 no parameters, strong annotations, and an output schema, the description fully covers the tool's role, safety profile, and usage context. It adds distinguishing context (Azure-native, full-universe, nightly 215-issuer) that makes it complete for an agent to select correctly among a large sibling set.

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 schema coverage is 100% and description simply states 'Parameters: none.' The baseline for 0 params is 4, and there is nothing more to explain. The description appropriately notes this without redundancy.

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 uses a specific verb ('check whether... is healthy') and pinpoints the exact resource: the Azure-native ATLAS-7 full-universe regression audit. It distinguishes itself from the many sibling audit tools by naming ATLAS-7, 'full-universe regression', and explicitly noting it only reports status, not runs the audit.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'before trusting historical ATLAS-7 surfaces in an agent workflow' and 'when an operator asks whether the nightly 215-issuer audit is current.' It also clarifies what it does NOT do (run the audit, mutate data) which helps rule out misuse.

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 description adds context beyond the readOnly/destructive annotations: it explicitly states it is idempotent, performs no wallet/settlement/trading actions, and assembles from existing precomputed surfaces. This gives operational confidence and insight into the tool's non-mutating, aggregation-based behavior without contradicting annotations.

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 organized into five sentences covering purpose, components, parameters, behavior, and use case. It is slightly longer than minimal but each sentence carries distinct information, with the primary use case front-loaded.

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 an 8-parameter tool with an output schema, the description captures the core function, parameter semantics, safety profile, and recommended usage context effectively. The presence of an output schema covers return values, so no additional return-format explanation is needed; the description is thorough and actionable.

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?

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description enriches parameter meaning: source_date 'replays' a slice, source_date_from/to can 'page recent slices', ticker or CIK narrows to one issuer, and mode defaults to compact. These additions go beyond the schema's per-field descriptions by explaining interactions and defaults.

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 uses a specific action ('assembles') and identifies the resource ('complete ATLAS-7 calculation bundle') for an issuer and source_date. It explicitly lists the bundle components (covenant stress, company fundamentals, peer ranking, etc.) and differentiates itself from sibling tools that cover individual surfaces or recent-only history.

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 clearly states when to use: 'Use this read-only tool when agents need the complete ATLAS-7 calculation bundle' and ties it to historical report rendering. It implies alternatives for single-surface or latest-only tools ('so agents do not mix latest-only fields into a historical answer') but does not explicitly name them, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds non-obvious behavior: it 'never returns the raw facts_payload' and directs users to use fact_source_pointer plus evidence_hash for drilldown/audit. This goes beyond the annotations and helps prevent misuse.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds meaningful detail (return format, parameter behavior, safety guarantees, use cases) without fluff. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 the return format (one compact row per issuer, listed fields), safety profile, parameter behavior, and intended use cases. With an output schema present and complete annotations, this description is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds behavioral meaning to parameters: source_date 'replays a known materialization slice', ticker/cik 'narrows to one issuer', limit 'defaults to 25 and is capped at 250', and offset 'paginates the universe.' These add value beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('retrieve') and identifies the exact resource ('compact SEC CompanyFacts/XBRL materialization rows') and scope (crypto public-company universe or a specific ticker/CIK). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like atlas7_calculation_history and deltasignal_atlas7_point_in_time_history by focusing on CompanyFacts materialization history.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'Use this for Mirror Pulse or ATLAS-7 historical joins when you need the compact issuer-level CompanyFacts inventory for all 215 crypto companies.' It names concrete use cases but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, so it falls 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.

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent, but the description goes beyond by specifying that it does not fetch live market data, run ATLAS calculations, place trades, or mutate recorder state. It also discloses that it does not promote legacy compatibility scores or venue context into canonical truth, adding meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations.

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 a clear purpose and then efficiently covers the four levels, parameters, and behavior. It is slightly dense but every sentence contributes meaningful information. No fluff, though the parameter list could have been omitted given schema coverage.

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, the description covers purpose, scope, the four-layer reporting, parameters, and safety/behavioral exclusions. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not needed. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for all six parameters, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description merely lists parameter names and adds the mode=compact|full shorthand, which is also present in the schema. It adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'determine which ATLAS-7 four-level layers are evidence-backed for one issuer or a paginated issuer universe.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the four layers and explicitly excluding legacy compatibility scores and venue context, which aligns with its unique purpose.

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 gives clear usage context: use it to determine evidence-backed ATLAS-7 layers for an issuer or paginated set. It also states what it does not do (no live data, no calculations, no trades, no state mutation), providing useful exclusions. However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly indicate when not to use it, so it falls 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.

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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses concrete behavioral details: performs one HTTPS read, no natural language generation, never executes trades/wallets/settlement flows, and explains the PIT mechanism (filed <= as_of_date, lookahead safety flags). This is rich, accurate 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 dense but efficient, covering purpose, methodology, parameters, behavior, and usage guidance without fluff. It is longer than a one-liner but every sentence adds value.

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 comprehensive for a complex 8-parameter tool with an output schema. It covers purpose, use cases, PIT logic, behavioral semantics, and mode selection. Since an output schema exists, return-value details are not required in the description.

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 input schema already covers all 8 parameters with descriptions, so the burden on the description is low. The description adds 'ticker or CIK' grouping and clarifies mode usage (compact vs. full), which is slightly beyond the schema, but most parameter semantics remain 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns daily ATLAS-7 CompanyFacts-derived factor rows keyed by as_of_date, and specifies use cases (Mirror Pulse, backtests, agents). The PIT methodology distinguishes it from sibling history tools.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool (need for daily ATLAS-7 factor rows keyed by as_of_date) and provides mode guidance (compact for Mirror Pulse joins, full for audit pages). It does not name alternative tools or explicitly say when not to use, but the context is clear.

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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds a meaningful behavioral nuance beyond annotations: 'does not apply the latest ATLAS snapshot retroactively across history,' which clarifies time-series semantics. It also mentions 'performs one HTTPS read,' reinforcing the read-only nature without contradicting the annotations.

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 appropriately structured with clear sections (Parameters, Behavior, Use) and front-loads the purpose in the first sentence. It is somewhat long but every sentence serves a function, and for a tool with 5 parameters and multiple behaviors, this level of detail is justified.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values in detail. It does list the output fields (debt, crypto fair value, BTC holdings, stress, risk tier, quality flags, provenance) and explains their purpose for mNAV and Mirror Pulse joins. Combined with the behavioral explanation and usage guidance, the description is contextually complete for a moderately complex historical data tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description summarizes parameter behavior (e.g., 'inclusive ATLAS source-date range,' 'limit defaults to 500,' 'offset paginates') but these details already exist in the input schema. It does not introduce new meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'retrieve a historical ATLAS-7 covenant and stress series for one crypto public company ticker.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing 'historical' and explicitly stating it 'does not apply the latest ATLAS snapshot retroactively,' which separates it from current-snapshot or recent-history tools like atlas7_recent_history.

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 use cases in the final sentence: 'Use this when the user needs historical ATLAS data, MSTR/Strategy time series, mNAV backtests, Mirror Pulse joins, or dated stress/risk snapshots.' This gives clear context for when to invoke the tool, though it does not name specific alternative tools or provide 'when not to use' exclusions.

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 mark readOnly=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds meaningful context beyond these: it explicitly states the tool is read-only and idempotent, and further clarifies it does not fetch live exchange data on demand, place trades, or mutate recorder state. It also mentions the data is 'assembled from persisted recorder evidence,' providing useful behavioral context about data sourcing.

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 compact, well-structured three-sentence block. It front-loads the purpose, then lists return contents and parameters, and ends with behavioral constraints. Every sentence earns its place, and the length is appropriate for a tool with 8 parameters.

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 (8 parameters, 0 required) and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it returns, what filters are available, and what side effects it avoids. It also notes optional full market inputs/lineage, which informs the agent about output modes. No major gaps are apparent.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description enumerates parameter groups (product/underlying_ticker, source_date/range, mode, limit, offset) but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It simply restates them in prose without clarifying when to use one filter over another or additional semantics.

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 it retrieves Coinbase INTX perp market-factor history assembled from persisted recorder evidence, with specific details about returned rows (venue-pure, contract identity, ATLAS-shaped factor fields, deltas, quality state, optional inputs/lineage). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like deltasignal_coinbase_perp_factors or deltasignal_coinbase_perp_rankings, which target different resources.

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 clear context: it is for historical calculation data from persisted evidence, and it explicitly states it does not fetch live exchange data, place trades, or mutate recorder state, signaling when not to use it. However, it does not name alternative tools or provide explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use comparisons beyond the exclusion of live data.

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 description goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) by explaining the evidence boundary of persisted registry rows, the grouping by source date, and the explicit absence of live-data fetching or trade placement. This adds meaningful behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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?

Three sentences front-load the core purpose, then enumerate parameters briefly and conclude with behavioral guarantees. No wasted words; it is appropriately sized for a read-only query tool with seven parameters.

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 purpose, parameter setup, behavioral boundaries, and return grouping. An output schema exists, so detailed return-value documentation is not needed. The mention of evidence boundary adds completeness for a registry-retrieval context, and annotations cover the safety profile.

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%, but the description adds value by clarifying that source_date and source_date_from/to are alternative date filter styles, and by enumerating mode values (compact|full). It also highlights that product is required. This supplements the schema's individual field descriptions without being redundant.

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 uses a specific verb ('retrieve') with a defined resource ('persisted constituent registries') and scopes it to 'one Coinbase thematic or index perp product' with concrete examples. It also distinguishes itself from live exchange-native constituent APIs, which separates it from sibling tools like deltasignal_coinbase_perp_factors or market_spectra.

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 clearly states this returns persisted registry rows rather than live exchange-native constituent APIs, and explicitly lists what it does not do (fetch live data, place trades, mutate recorder state). While it does not name alternative sibling tools, the exclusion of live data and the emphasis on read-only retrieval gives strong contextual guidance for when to use this tool.

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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds beyond that by stating it does not fetch live exchange state or write recorder artifacts on demand, clarifying the tool's non-interactive nature. This adds genuine context without contradiction.

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 with the use case, followed by parameter enumeration and behavior statement. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 tool has an output schema and the description covers the input parameters, response components (factor rows, deltas, quality state, optional full inputs/lineage), and behavioral constraints. Sibling context is provided by the 'one perp product' framing. No significant 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and all parameters have descriptions. The description lists the parameters and notes required vs optional, and clarifies that mode accepts compact/full. This adds a little meaning but mostly mirrors the schema, so 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?

The description clearly states the verb ('returns') and resource ('one perp product's venue-pure factor history'), and differentiates from siblings by specifying 'for one perp product' and 'factor history' as opposed to calculation history, constituents, rankings, etc. It also mentions optional full market inputs or lineage, providing a specific scope.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('when the user wants persisted Coinbase INTX market-factor history for one perp product'), giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, so it falls 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.

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

Beyond the annotations, the description states 'read-only and idempotent with no destructive side effects; it does not create factors, reconstruct missing depth, or override the underlying factor rows.' This adds behavioral constraints and clarifies the non-destructive nature, fully consistent with the annotations.

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 concise, using four sentences each with a distinct purpose: usage, transformation, parameter list, and behavior. There is no filler or redundant content, though it is slightly longer than the minimal two-sentence ideal.

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 purpose, transformation behavior, parameter roles, and non-destructive guarantees. With an output schema present and full parameter documentation in the schema, the description is sufficient for correct tool selection and invocation without needing further context.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all six parameters. The tool description only summarizes which parameters are required or optional, adding no extra semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.

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: 'retrieve the market SPECTRA field map for one Coinbase INTX perp product.' It also explains the transformation from factor history to labels, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like deltasignal_coinbase_perp_factors or deltasignal_spectra_field_map.

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 clear context: 'for one Coinbase INTX perp product' and lists parameter categories (required vs optional). It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the scope is evident from the description and sibling names.

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?

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent hints, the description adds valuable contextual detail: it performs no live exchange fetches, order placement, or settlement flows. It also explains the return structure and idempotent nature, enriching the agent's understanding of side effects and operational characteristics.

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 three sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the purpose, then summarizes outputs, parameters, and safety behavior. Every sentence earns its place, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 rich annotations, output schema, and 100% parameter coverage, the description is fully self-sufficient. It covers purpose, output fields, parameter usage, and explicit non-behaviors, so an agent can invoke the tool correctly without additional investigation.

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?

While schema coverage is 100%, the description adds practical grouping ('product or underlying_ticker filters', 'source_date or source_date_from/source_date_to') and specifies mode=compact|full, which is not indicated as an enum in the schema. This helps agents understand parameter relationships and valid mode values.

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 ranks Coinbase INTX perp products by the latest persisted market_alpha row per product, specifying the output board fields (rank, percentile, ranking_score, ranking_band, provenance). This gives a specific verb+resource+scope and distinguishes it from sibling tools like deltasignal_coinbase_perp_factors.

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 opens with 'Use this read-only tool to rank...', providing clear context and intended use. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is well-defined and behavioral notes (no live fetches, no order placement) help agents decide. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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 read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds specific context: 'performs one HTTPS read, has no destructive side effects, and does not modify SEC data, accounts, files, or wallets,' and clarifies that optional containers return availability metadata. This exceeds annotation coverage without contradicting it.

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 well-structured: purpose first, then parameter summary, then behavior, then usage guidance. No filler or redundancy; every sentence contributes to agent understanding.

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 an output schema present, the description need not enumerate return fields. It fully covers purpose, usage triggers, parameter semantics, behavioral safety, and sibling differentiation, making it complete for a 4-parameter fundamental retrieval tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds nuance beyond schema by stating that optional parameters 'request additional containers when available and otherwise return availability metadata,' which clarifies fallback behavior not obvious from the schema alone.

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 opens with a specific verb ('retrieve') and resource ('SEC XBRL-backed fundamentals for one crypto public company ticker'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like alpha_signals or covenant_stress by mentioning those as alternatives for modeled signal interpretation.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool ('when the user asks for revenue, net income, assets, cash, liabilities, equity, SEC filing context, or fact provenance') and directs to alternatives ('use alpha_signals or covenant_stress for modeled signal interpretation'), giving both inclusion and exclusion guidance.

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?

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds concrete behavior: performs six internal HTTPS reads, rejects invalid tickers before fan-out, preserves partial results on leg failure, and conditionally includes SPECTRA. This exceeds baseline by providing operational expectations.

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 dense paragraph that covers purpose, parameters, behavior, and usage. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value, though the parameter list could be slightly more structured. Efficient for the tool's complexity.

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 composite nature, the description fully covers the call plan, parameter semantics, behavioral guarantees, and usage scenarios. With an output schema present, the lack of return-value detail is acceptable. No gaps identified.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description restates ticker normalization and parameter optionality but adds no new semantic detail; all parameter meaning is already in the schema. It does not exceed the baseline.

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 this is a composite workflow tool for the DeltaSignal ATLAS-7 company report, listing the six component calls (readiness, company_fundamentals, alpha_signals, peer_ranking, covenant_stress, SPECTRA). It distinguishes from low-level sibling tools by explicitly reserving them for custom drilldowns.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is provided: 'when the user asks for a report, deep dive, issuer brief, or diligence package' and for Morning Brief/alpha-screen rows. It also explicitly states when NOT to use it: 'use low-level tools only for custom drilldowns.' This is exemplary.

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?

Even though annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, the description adds substantial behavioral context: 'idempotent and local for the MVP,' 'does not mint official SEC identity,' 'does not infer filing evidence from prose,' and 'does not call wallets or x402 settlement.' This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand side effects and constraints.

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 concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and organized into purpose, parameter notes, behavior, and output packet. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or repetition. It covers a complex tool in about 100 words without unnecessary detail.

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 (18 params) and the presence of a full output schema plus annotations, the description is complete enough. It explains the core purpose, key parameter behavior, non-functional characteristics (read-only, idempotent, local), and the structure of the returned packet. The agent can confidently select and invoke 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for descriptions, giving a baseline of 3. The tool description adds meaning by clarifying how key parameters interact: article_tripcode is optional, filing_tripcodes may list one or more objects, and ticker=HUT with no filing_tripcodes loads the default HUT filing pack. This adds value beyond the schema, though not for all 18 parameters.

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 function with a specific verb and resource: 'compare a TF-SUB article node against resolved TF-XBRL filing evidence objects.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like deltasignal_compare_claim_to_evidence by focusing on article-to-filing evidence comparison rather than claims.

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 gives clear usage context: 'Use this read-only comparison tool' and explains key parameter combinations (e.g., article_tripcode optional, filing_tripcodes list, ticker=HUT with no filing_tripcodes loads default pack). It does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, but the usage context is sufficiently clear for an agent to select it appropriately.

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 cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying the output categories ('confirmed, weakened, unresolved, or new_claim') and the behavioral guarantee 'without inventing evidence.' This is useful context not present in the annotations, though the safety profile is already well-covered.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and safety profile. Every sentence contributes meaningful information: purpose, parameter usage, behavior, and return categories. No waste, no redundancy beyond what is helpful.

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 (14 optional parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description effectively covers what an agent needs: the core parameter combos, the read-only status, and the outcome categories. The output schema handles detailed return structure, so the description is complete for selection and invocation.

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%, so each parameter is individually documented. The description adds extra semantic value by indicating the required combination pattern: 'pass claim_text or query plus river_tripcode or issuer.' This helps select the right parameters beyond what the schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.