spectre-markets

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Today's free levels') and describes the return content, which is transparent. However, it does not explicitly state there are no side effects, nor does it mention authentication, rate limits, or any limitations on the input symbol. It adds some behavioral context but leaves gaps.

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 concise sentences: the first states the core purpose and return content, the second adds a usage restriction. No wasted words; the most important information is front-loaded. It is highly efficient and well-structured.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what data is returned, the scope (single instrument), and the usage restriction. It does not address error conditions or authentication, but for this tool's simplicity the coverage is reasonably complete. A missing note on validity of symbols or response format could be a minor gap, but overall it is adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides examples ('NQ', 'ES') and clarifies that the symbol is an instrument, adding meaning beyond the bare 'symbol' string. However, it does not specify valid symbol formats, whether the symbol is case-sensitive, or how errors are handled for invalid inputs. It partially compensates but is not exhaustive.

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 — 'Today's free levels for one instrument' — and enumerates exactly what is returned (market regime, named free levels with prices, desk read excerpt, and count of further levels). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_paths (paths) and list_symbols (symbol list) by scoping to a single instrument and to level data.

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 phrase 'for one instrument' establishes clear context for when to use this tool, and 'Research/education only' adds a usage restriction. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., 'for a list of symbols, use list_symbols') or state when NOT to use this tool. So it has clear context but no explicit 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?

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that results are 'today's' (time-sensitive) and that it's research/education only, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what errors or edge cases occur, or any side effects. The safety profile is left implicit.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key information (ranked, today, one instrument) and immediately lists the output components. No wasted words; every phrase 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 gives a solid overview of the output (waypoints, trade idea) but lacks details on the number of paths, output structure, error handling, or any constraints (e.g., symbol validity). With no output schema, more detail would be helpful, though the tool is simple (one param) and the core purpose is clear.

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 0%, so the description must clarify the parameter. It implies 'symbol' is an instrument identifier, which provides minimal semantic value, but it does not specify the expected format, case sensitivity, or how the symbol maps to the returned paths. Adequate but not detailed.

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 action (get) on a specific resource (ranked session paths) with clear scope (one instrument, today) and enumerates output contents (waypoints, trade idea with entry zone, invalidation, target). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_levels or list_symbols.

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 a usage constraint ('Research/education only') but does not explain when to choose this tool over alternatives. It neither mentions sibling tools nor provides any conditional guidance, so an agent has no direction on when this is the right call.

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?

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It truthfully describes a read-only listing operation and the data included, but does not comment on authentication, pagination, or the exact shape of the returned link. For a simple list call this is acceptable, though more operational context would improve 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?

One clear sentence that front-loads the action and lists the returned payload. No filler.

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

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

For a zero-parameter list operation, the description covers what is returned (instruments, session, link) and distinguishes it from sibling tools. It lacks an explicit statement of output formatting, but the tool is simple enough that the description suffices.

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 takes zero parameters, and the schema already reflects this (100% coverage). With no parameters, the description has nothing to add; baseline of 4 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?

States the exact verb 'List', the resource 'instruments SPECTRE Markets publishes a levels board for', and the output fields (session, link). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_levels and get_paths, which are presumably narrower data fetchers.

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 implies its use for discovering available instruments, but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over siblings or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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