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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only ranking operation by saying it 'Returns' candidates and explicitly says it does not produce trade orders. However, it does not clarify whether this is strictly read-only, what 'asymmetric candidates' means in practice, or any data freshness or rate-limit considerations.

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 one compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the main action and criteria, then adds a useful clarifying exclusion in the second clause. Every phrase earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it explains what the tool ranks and what it returns. However, it leaves key context undefined, such as what 'asymmetric candidates' means, the exact output shape, and how `limit` controls the response, which an agent may need to 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?

There is one parameter (`limit`), and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention `limit` at all or explain how it affects results. The schema provides type, default, and bounds, but the description fails to add semantic meaning, such as whether limit controls the number of ranked tokens returned or the depth of analysis.

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

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Rank') and a clear resource ('tokens') with explicit criteria: sentiment, fundamentals, and price action alignment. It also distinguishes this tool from order-execution tools by stating it returns 'best asymmetric candidates, not trade orders,' which helps differentiate it from many talon_* siblings.

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 conveys clear context for use: ranking tokens with aligned sentiment, fundamentals, and price action. It explicitly excludes trade orders, providing a useful boundary, though it does not name alternative sibling tools or give detailed 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.