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

The annotations already declare that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world tool. Beyond that, the description adds useful behavioral context: the calls are the stock model's rather than coin calls, and the answer must include the stamp, sources, and not-advice line. It does not, however, discuss limitations, freshness guarantees, or error behavior.

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 the main purpose and is only three sentences long. The first sentence is dense and slightly awkward ('how many it leans outperform'), but it carries substantive information without obvious waste.

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, read-only tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains what the tool reports, clarifies that the calls are on stocks rather than coins, and specifies required provenance/disclaimer elements. The main remaining gap is explicit routing against 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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to compensate for. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4.

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 scope: US crypto stocks tracked by StockMap's model, including stance counts, two-week window accuracy, and Bitcoin's move since the last US close. It also distinguishes itself from coin-focused tools with 'on the stocks, never on coins,' though it does not explicitly name sibling tools such as compare_stocks or stock_call.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope exclusion ('the stock model's, on the stocks, never on coins'), which tells the agent this is not a coin-price or Bitcoin-only tool. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or direct comparison to alternatives like crypto_today, bitcoin_test, or stock_call.

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