Composite geopolitical intervention signal — GDELT + BBC + AlJazeera + ADS-B mil + prediction-market boosters (intervention signal pattern). Returns alert_level + signals array.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| region | No | global|middle_east|ukraine|taiwan|asia_pacific | |
| hours_back | No | Hours back, default 6 | |
| min_confidence | No | Min confidence 0-1, default 0.6 | |
| include_thermal | No | Include thermal/firms heuristic |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions the output format and data sources but does not disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, how confidence is computed, or what triggers different alert levels. The tool appears read-only but that's inferred, not stated.
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 efficiently convey purpose and output format with no wasted words. However, a bulleted list or structure could improve scannability. It is appropriately 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?
Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the high-level purpose and output but omits details about the signals array structure, default parameter behaviors, edge cases, and performance implications. Adequate but incomplete for fully autonomous agent use.
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% with parameter descriptions already present. The description adds high-level context about data sources but does not elaborate on parameter meanings beyond the schema. Thus it meets the baseline without adding significant 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 clearly states it is a 'Composite geopolitical intervention signal' and lists specific data sources (GDELT, BBC, AlJazeera, ADS-B, prediction markets). It explains the output is 'alert_level + signals array'. While it distinguishes from many siblings by being composite and intervention-focused, it does not explicitly compare with other similar alert tools like 'regulatory_pulse'.
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, no prerequisites, and no when-not-to-use scenarios. The function is stated but the context of use is left implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.