Lombardo Cycle

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful piece of context, the data source (cycle.lombardo.life, i.e. published third-party figures rather than computed values), but says nothing about freshness, caching, or units. A 3 is appropriate given the 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?

A single sentence with no wasted wording: the returned fields are listed first, the data source is attributed, and the read-only nature is stated last. Fully 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?

With no parameters and an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it doesn't. The source attribution covers the main ambiguity an agent would have about where the numbers come from; only freshness/cadence is unaddressed, a minor gap for a simple read 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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly avoids restating an empty 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') tied to a named resource ('Bitcoin's published power-law fair value') and enumerates the three values returned: fair value, deviation, and percentile zone. It is clearly a single-metric tool rather than a generic readout fetcher, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like get_latest_readout.

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 says what it returns but offers no when-to-use guidance, no conditions distinguishing it from get_latest_readout or get_readout, and no exclusions. Usage is only implied by the fact that the tool takes no parameters and returns a fixed metric set.

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, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description's 'Read-only' merely restates that. It does add that content is sourced from the external site cycle.lombardo.life, which is useful provenance (and slightly in tension with openWorldHint=false, though 'published on' suggests a cached/internal mirror rather than live browsing).

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 sentence with a colon-delimited payload list plus a two-word safety note. Front-loaded with the resource and the 'latest' qualifier; nothing is padded.

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 detail need not be explained here, and no parameters or side effects need elaboration. The only minor gap is the absence of any freshness/staleness cue (e.g. how often the daily readout updates) for a tool whose entire value proposition is recency.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the schema is trivially complete. The description instead spends its words describing what the response contains, which is the right use of space for a no-arg tool.

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 a specific verb (get), a specific resource (latest daily Bitcoin cycle readout), and enumerates the payload contents (headline, price, power-law fair value, cycle phase, key levels). This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like get_readout (presumably by date/id) and get_fair_value (single metric).

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 word 'latest' implies a use case (current snapshot rather than a historical readout), but the description never explicitly says when to prefer this over get_readout or list_readouts. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the trailing 'Read-only' adds nothing new. The only extra context is the publishing source (cycle.lombardo.life), which is mildly useful for grounding but not a behavioral trait such as error handling or missing-date 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?

Two short fragments, front-loaded with the core action, with no filler. The 'Read-only' clause is redundant against the annotations, which is the only wasted element.

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 one fully documented parameter, an output schema present, and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the definition is nearly complete. It could still say how a nonexistent date is handled, but nothing critical is missing for correct 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?

There is a single required parameter and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage, including the same YYYY-MM-DD pattern the description repeats. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: fetch a single dated daily readout, with the date format and publishing source named. The word 'dated' plus 'one' implicitly separates it from get_latest_readout and list_readouts, though no sibling is explicitly named.

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 only implied: the agent can infer this is the tool for retrieving a specific edition by date, versus the 'latest' sibling. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no mention of what to do when the requested date has no edition, and no pointer to 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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that results come back newest-first, but its 'Read-only' sentence merely restates the annotations. An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained here.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with no filler. The trailing 'Read-only' sentence is redundant with readOnlyHint=true, which is the only wasted text.

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?

This is a simple, zero-required-parameter list tool with rich annotations and an output schema, and the description covers what is listed, its source, and ordering. The only omission is any hint about pagination behavior or how the limit interacts with 'newest first', which is minor at this 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?

There is a single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including default and 1-60 bounds, so the schema does all the work. The description says nothing about the limit parameter, adding no meaning beyond the schema; baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource ('List the dated daily readouts (editions)') and adds scope ('published on cycle.lombardo.life') plus ordering ('newest first'), which clearly separates it from the single-item siblings get_readout and get_latest_readout. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated in-text.

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?

Listing with 'newest first' implies this is the browse/enumerate path versus fetching one edition, so the usage context is inferable. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_latest_readout or get_readout, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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