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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: outputs are derived values only with raw index/commodity levels withheld, uncomputable legs are returned as null and named in unavailable[], results are self-cached for 15 minutes, and the contango/backwardation threshold is spelled out (above 1.0 = backwardation). These are exactly the details an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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?

Every clause carries information — metric list, interpretation threshold, null handling, caching — with nothing redundant. The opening sentence is long and densely packed, but the critical scoping fact (derived values only, no raw levels) is 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 output schema and no parameters, the description carries the full burden and discharges it: it defines each returned quantity, the sign range for correlations, null/unavailable semantics, and caching behavior. An agent can interpret the response without any further documentation.

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 the baseline is 4. The description explicitly confirms 'No parameters,' matching the empty schema, and no additional parameter meaning is needed.

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?

Names a specific resource (cross-asset regime) and enumerates the exact derived signals returned: 60-session stock-bond and dollar-stock correlations, gold/S&P and copper/gold ratio changes, WTI, VIX/VIX3M, MOVE/VIX. That enumeration makes it unmistakable against siblings like get_market_valuation or get_market_breadth, which cover different analytical territory.

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?

No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the sibling tools is given. Usage is implied by the content (a cross-asset regime snapshot), which is adequate but leaves the agent to infer when this beats get_macro_liquidity or get_market_valuation.

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