Coil Scanner

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses critical behavioral traits: data is sha256-committed before outcomes were known, append-only, never revised, and costs $0.02 USDC per call. This provides transparency about data integrity, mutation policy, and pricing beyond the basic tool name.

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 compact, using three sentences to convey purpose, integrity guarantees, usage variation, and pricing. It front-loads the core value proposition ('Point-in-time archive') and avoids redundancy; every sentence earns its place.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers the purpose, the historical/provenance use case, the append-only behavior, the cost, and the variation when omitting the date. It does not explain the return format, but that's not necessary given the tool's straightforward nature.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage of the single 'date' parameter, describing it as an archived date in YYYY-MM-DD format and noting it can be omitted for the archive index. The tool description repeats this usage ('omit date for the list of archived dates') without adding new semantics, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as a point-in-time archive of Coil's published scores for a specific archived date, distinguishing it from live/free counterparts by emphasizing sha256-committed, append-only data and backtest-grade provenance. This specific verb+resource+scope definition differentiates it from sibling tools like get_full_board.

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 clear context: it is for backtest-grade historical data, explicitly noting 'no free counterpart' and instructing to 'omit date for the list of archived dates.' It implies use for archival/provenance needs rather than live data, though it doesn't name explicit alternative tools.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses data delay ('one market day delayed'), the inclusion of a regime mode indicating actionability, and the pay-per-call nature of the live sibling. These are meaningful behavioral traits that help an agent set expectations, though it does not mention rate limits or auth requirements.

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 a single, dense sentence that packs in all essential details: two lanes, specific scores, flags, regime mode, free tier delay, and the live alternative. It front-loads the core purpose and each clause earns its place, with no fluff.

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 no output schema and no parameters, the description covers the key output elements (scores, flag, note, regime) and the critical distinction between free and live versions. It provides enough context for an agent to decide to call this tool and understand what it will receive.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description need not explain parameter behavior. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no competing information. It could explicitly state 'takes no parameters' but that is unnecessary given the 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Today's ranked buy-list candidates per book across two lanes' and mentions specific outputs like scores, leadership flag, and entry-window note. It distinguishes from the sibling get_buy_list_live by naming it explicitly, and from other board tools by focusing on buy-list candidates.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use this tool vs. the live sibling: 'Free tier: one market day delayed. Live sibling (x402, pay-per-call): get_buy_list_live.' This implies the free version is for delayed data and the live one for real-time needs, but it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternative non-live tools.

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 provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that this is a paid call ($0.02 USDC via x402) and implies a wallet requirement. It also indicates the intraday/live nature and that candidates are shown while entry windows are open. It does not mention rate limits or failure modes, but given zero parameters and no output schema, it provides sufficient behavioral context.

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 compact and contains no fluff, but the first sentence is slightly clunky with 'Live intraday get_buy_list' as a noun phrase. It packs three pieces of information (live status, delay comparison, cost) into three short sentences, earning a high score though not a perfect 5.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use the alternative, and cost. It does not describe the response format, but that is often acceptable when no output schema exists. The reference to READY/SETUP is domain-specific but provides meaningful context.

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 the schema trivially covers 100%. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds context about what the tool returns (ranked candidates) but does not need to explain parameters since there are none.

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 returns live intraday ranked buy candidates with entry windows still open (READY/SETUP). It differentiates from the sibling get_buy_list by emphasizing the 'live' and 'intraday' nature, which distinguishes it from the delayed free version.

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 explicitly contrasts with get_buy_list: if no wallet, use the free delayed version. This implies the live version requires a wallet/cost and is for real-time needs. However, it does not explicitly state 'use this when you need real-time data' beyond the name and context.

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?

Discloses evaluation on UTC daily closes, the exact delay (one completed close), evaluation every calendar day including weekends, and the signal_close_date stamp. Also clarifies it is rules-based rather than raw price data. With no annotations, this provides substantial transparency.

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?

Three tightly scoped sentences cover output components, evaluation cadence, delay, and live alternative without fluff; each clause adds informational 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?

Despite lacking output schema, the description enumerates the key output fields (LONG/CASH states, trend gates, price, day change, signal_close_date) and explains the operational context (UTC closes, calendar-day evaluation, free-tier delay), making it self-sufficient for a zero-param 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?

Tool has zero parameters; empty schema with 100% coverage, so description adds no parameter semantics. Baseline 4 applies for zero-param tools.

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?

Clearly states it provides Bitcoin and Ethereum trend signals with LONG/CASH states, 50-day and 200-day gates, evaluated on UTC daily closes, and distinguishes itself from raw price data. The explicit contrast with get_crypto_trend_live differentiates it from the sibling.

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?

Explicitly identifies the free tier's one-close lag and points to get_crypto_trend_live for the newest close, explaining the tradeoff. Clarifies it is a risk-on/risk-off verdict, not raw price data, guiding appropriate use.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing costs ($0.005 USDC per call), update frequency (daily including weekends), and output stamping (close used). However, it does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation, nor does it describe potential errors or rate limits. The mention of 'x402' is cryptic for some users.

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 concise, with four short sentences each adding relevant information: core function, timeliness, free alternative, and pricing. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Minor repetition of 'get_crypto_trend' and a casual tone ('No wallet?') prevent a 5.

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 no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., the trend value or signal). It mentions the close stamp but never explicitly states the output type or format. It covers cost and update timing, but leaves the return value ambiguous, so it is only minimally complete.

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, so schema coverage is 100% by default. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning (there are none), but that is not 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?

The description clearly states the resource (crypto trend) and the timing (newest completed UTC daily close), and it distinguishes from the sibling 'get_crypto_trend' by emphasizing timeliness and cost. However, it relies on the sibling's meaning for 'trend' and does not fully explain what the tool returns, so it is not a 5.

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 practical guidance: it mentions the free alternative ('get_crypto_trend is free') and when to use this paid version (when you need the newest close, not one close behind). It also notes it updates every calendar day, implying freshness. There is no explicit 'use this when X, otherwise Y', but the context is clear.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that data is delayed, decays in minutes, and is not suitable as a trading input—critical context. It lacks explicit detail on output format or edge cases but provides strong caveats that go beyond a simple summary.

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 dense but effectively front-loaded with the core purpose ('Yesterday's day-trade state map'). It packs a lot of detail into a compact space, though some acronyms (GO, FUEL, ROOM) are unexplained, slightly reducing clarity.

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 no output schema or annotations and moderate complexity, the description covers the content, staleness, and live alternative. It could be more complete by defining key terms (e.g., ROOM) or outlining the exact response shape, but the description provides enough context for an agent to decide whether to invoke it and what to expect.

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 the schema is empty, so there is no parameter burden. The description appropriately focuses on the output and limitations rather than parameter details, aligning with the baseline for parameterless tools.

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 what the tool provides: a 'Yesterday's day-trade state map' with a specific grid of indicators (price/RSI/MACD, 5m-1D) and trading states (GO, FUEL, ROOM) across ~70 liquid names. It distinguishes itself from the live sibling by explicitly labeling the live version as a separate tool.

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?

It explicitly says the free delayed tier is a 'schema/shape preview, not a trading input' and mentions that day states decay in minutes, implying use the live sibling when actual trading decisions are needed. It also names the live alternative directly, giving clear usage guidance.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the ~5 minute refresh during market hours, the $0.01 USDC cost per call, the 'ext:true' flag meaning late, and the state-map vs ranking behavior. This goes well beyond basic expectations.

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 dense and front-loaded with the core purpose, but it contains four sentences with multiple clauses. Each sentence adds value, yet the length is slightly more than the leanest possible. Overall, it is well-structured with no fluff.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description is highly complete. It covers what the data map contains, refresh cadence, cost, the meaning of 'ext:true,' and a fallback alternative, giving the agent all essential context to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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, so there is no schema to clarify. The description adds rich context about the data and behavior, which compensates for the absence of parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.

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 explicitly defines the tool as a 'LIVE day-trade state map' with a concrete feature list (18-cell lights grid, GO, FUEL, efficiency, ATR%, vs-SPY, entry-window state, ROOM) and explicitly contrasts it with a ranking and with the sibling get_day_board. This makes its purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from similar tools.

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 explicit usage guidance: it tells the user to use get_day_board instead if they have no wallet ('No wallet? get_day_board is yesterday's map, free'), implying this tool requires payment and is for live data. It also clarifies that it is 'not a ranking,' telling the agent it should not be used for ranking purposes.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses the cost ($0.25 USDC per call), live data nature, and that it is the only paid version ('No free counterpart'). It doesn't mention potential output size or rate limits, but the ~560 count gives a sense of payload size.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core value ('complete LIVE board in one payload'), then efficiently enumerates the major content categories and concludes with pricing. Every phrase earns its place with no padding.

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 complex tool with no output schema, the description covers the main categories of returned data (scored names across indices, sector lanes, buy-list lanes, regime and crypto books) and notes the live nature and cost. It could be slightly more explicit about the response format or whether the output is JSON, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand what to expect.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on the fixed output contents rather than input semantics, adding no unnecessary parameter details.

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 the tool returns 'the complete LIVE board in one payload' and enumerates its contents (scored names, sector lanes, buy-list lanes, regime and crypto books). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_board_asof and get_buy_list by being the complete, live, flagship read.

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: 'No free counterpart' and 'flagship read' suggest this is the comprehensive paid option when you need everything, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it. Sibling tools like get_board_asof or get_buy_list are not mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the context.

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 provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the output includes top 10 names per book with opportunity scores and confirms uptrends, but does not disclose any side effects, authentication needs, or data freshness. It is moderately transparent but lacks behavioral details that annotations would cover.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose ('Today's market leaders, ranked') and provides key details without unnecessary words.

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 no output schema and no parameters, the description is fairly complete. It explains the ranking basis (opportunity score, uptrends) and output scope (top 10 per book). However, it lacks definition of terms like 'book' or 'score read,' which could be clarified for full completeness.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining what the tool returns without needing parameters. It provides context (uptrends, opportunity score) beyond the 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 clearly states it provides the top 10 market leaders per book by opportunity score, focusing on stocks in confirmed uptrends. This distinct purpose differentiates it from sibling tools like get_buy_list or get_sector_read.

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 when to use (to see top market leaders) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. No comparison to sibling tools is made.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It discloses that the data is delayed by one market day on the free tier, mentions the books covered, and clarifies the output (regime, mode, permission ladder). While it doesn't explicitly state read-only behavior, the 'read' language and usage instruction make it implicit, and the delay information adds valuable behavioral context.

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 well-structured, starting with a memorable metaphor, then specifying the output, the books, the usage context, and the live alternative. Every sentence adds value—no fluff or redundancy—earning a high conciseness score.

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?

Despite having no output schema or parameters, the description covers what the tool returns, which asset classes it covers, when to use it, and its latency characteristics. It provides enough context for an agent to know when and how to invoke it effectively.

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 schema has zero parameters, so a baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter-specific detail because there are none, but it does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 identifies the tool as a top-down market read that returns a regime verdict, mode, and permission ladder for each specified book. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning the live alternative and describing its unique filtering/decision value.

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?

Explicitly instructs to 'Check this before acting on any name-level signal,' providing a clear when-to-use directive. Also notes the free tier delay and points to the live sibling for real-time needs, effectively covering both when and when-not usage.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses pricing ($0.005/call), refresh frequency (~5 min), timing (market hours), and implies it's a read operation ('same read'). It could also mention rate limits or behavior outside market hours, but the provided context is strong.

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 pack core functionality, usage guidance, pricing, and alternative. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Covers what the tool returns (regime verdict, mode, permission ladder), when it updates, cost, and the free alternative. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently explains the output and usage context.

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 the schema confirms this with an empty properties object. Baseline for 0 params is 4; the description adds no parameter details but none are 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: it computes the live intraday market regime verdict, mode, and permission ladder. It distinguishes from the sibling get_market_regime by specifying 'live' and '~5 min in market hours'.

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?

It explicitly names the alternative get_market_regime for delayed/free access, and labels this tool as 'the loop primitive, priced to be polled,' indicating when to use it in a polling loop rather than the delayed version.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that data is free but delayed by one market day, and that the live sibling is pay-per-call. It also lists the information categories included, giving the agent a good sense of what to expect. However, it doesn't describe the response structure or any quirks, so it falls short of a 5.

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 sentences with no fluff. The first sentence packs a concise list of contents, and the second provides essential usage and sibling guidance. Every word earns its place.

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 no output schema and a composite tool, the description provides a solid inventory of included data, the delay, and the live alternative. It doesn't specify the exact response layout, but the listed components likely suffice for an agent to know what the tool offers. This is complete enough for practical 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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than parameter definitions, which are unnecessary here.

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 the tool's purpose as 'the whole market read in one call' and enumerates specific components: regime verdict per book, top-5 buy candidates, gainers/losers, and BTC/ETH trend state. It also differentiates from siblings by naming the live counterpart, making the tool's scope unmistakable.

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?

It explicitly instructs 'Start here,' positioning the tool as the default entry point. It also provides a clear alternative by mentioning the live sibling (get_morning_brief_live) and notes the free tier's one-day delay, which is a key consideration for when to use this tool versus the live version.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses real-time liveness, the paid nature (x402), and the free delayed alternative. This gives the agent critical behavioral context such as cost and the requirement for a wallet, which is essential for decision-making.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: functionality, free alternative, and pricing. It is front-loaded, precise, and contains no redundant wording.

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 zero-parameter tool without an output schema, the description adequately specifies what the agent will receive (regime, top-5 candidates, movers, crypto gate) and the access model (live, paid, x402). This is sufficient for the agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 the schema fully documents this (100% coverage). Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description adds value by listing the returned data components without conflicting with the 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 clearly states the tool retrieves a live intraday morning brief with specific components (regime, top-5 candidates, movers, crypto gate). It distinguishes itself from the delayed sibling get_morning_brief by explicitly labeling itself 'Live' and referencing the free alternative.

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?

It provides explicit guidance: 'No wallet? get_morning_brief is free' tells users when to choose the alternative, and the cost disclosure ($0.02 USDC per call via x402) sets expectations for when this paid live version is appropriate.

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 provided, so the description correctly discloses key behavioral traits: one market day delay, unknown values return the sector directory, and the output includes member rankings and ETF row. It does not mention rate limits or auth, but for a read-only tool the delay and fallback are the most relevant traits.

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 three sentences, each with distinct purpose: output content, input flexibility, and tier/alternative. There is no filler or redundant information.

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, the description provides a clear sense of the return value ('every member... scored and ranked... plus the sector's own ETF row'). It covers the tool's function, input format, fallback behavior, and alternative tool, making it complete for a one-parameter read operation.

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 schema describes 'sector' as 'Sector name or sector-ETF symbol' (100% coverage), but the description adds concrete examples like 'Energy' and 'XLE', and explains the behavior for unknown values. This meaningfully extends the 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 begins with 'One sector's drill-down' and specifies the exact outputs: every member scored and ranked by opportunity, plus the sector's own ETF row. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_full_board or get_sector_read_live.

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?

It explicitly names the alternative 'get_sector_read_live' and labels it as pay-per-call, while stating the free tier has one market day delay. This tells the agent when to use this tool vs. the live sibling.

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 provided, so the description must disclose behavior itself. It discloses the $0.01 USDC per call cost and the x402 payment protocol, plus the 'live intraday' nature and that it requires a wallet. It does not mention read-only status or rate limits, but 'read' in the name and the non-destructive description make side effects unlikely. This is a reasonable level of transparency for a paid data retrieval tool.

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 three short sentences: purpose, alternative guidance, and pricing. Each sentence conveys distinct useful information with no filler, making it well-structured and easy to scan.

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 tool has only one parameter and no output schema. The description explains what it does (scores and ranks sector members), when it's live, the cost, and the condition to use a free alternative. It lacks explicit details about the output format (e.g., an array of objects with score fields), but for a simple single-query tool this is arguably sufficient. A small gap in specifying exactly what 'scored and ranked' means keeps it just below a perfect score.

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 single 'sector' parameter is fully described in the schema as 'Sector name or sector-ETF symbol.' The tool description only refers to 'a sector's members,' which is consistent but does not add extra syntax or examples beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds little marginal value, so a baseline score 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as a live intraday version of get_sector_read, specifying that it scores and ranks a sector's members from the current session. It distinguishes itself from the delayed free alternative via the 'live' qualifier and explicitly names get_sector_read.

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?

It explicitly states that if the user has no wallet, they should use the free, one market day delayed get_sector_read instead. This provides clear conditional guidance for when to choose the alternative, and the 'live intraday' framing implies use when current session data is needed.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the data recency (delayed), the fallback behavior for unknown symbols (returns directory), and the existence of a live version. It clearly indicates this is a read operation (though annotations absent, the description's wording makes this obvious). It also lists the exact output components, providing good transparency.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the tool's core purpose and deliverables, and includes essential usage/behavior notes without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place; the structure is efficient and scannable.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: what it returns (explicit list), valid inputs, edge-case behavior, data freshness, and the live alternative. It is complete enough for an agent to decide when and how to invoke the tool correctly, and to interpret results.

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 schema already describes 'symbol' as a ticker, and the description adds meaningful semantics by restricting the valid universe (S&P 500, Nasdaq-100, macro) and explaining the unknown-symbol behavior. This enriches the parameter's meaning beyond the schema baseline, though it could potentially include more details like case sensitivity or formatting.

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 the tool's function: it provides a comprehensive 'Coil read' for a single stock with specific metrics (opportunity score, board percentile, entry quality, state, hold strength, leadership flag, book regime). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming the live counterpart and focusing on a single stock, unlike other tools for boards or sectors.

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 specifies the valid symbol universe (S&P 500, Nasdaq-100, macro names) and the behavior for unknown symbols. It also provides a clear alternative: the live sibling for pay-per-call real-time data, and notes the free tier's one-market-day delay, effectively telling the user when to prefer each version.

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?

Without annotations, the description discloses key traits: live data, delay of the free alternative, per-call cost ($0.005 USDC via x402), and wallet requirement implied by 'No wallet?'. It doesn't cover rate limits or output format, but for a simple single-symbol read, the information is substantial.

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, front-loaded with the core function, then cost and alternative. No filler words; highly efficient.

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 only one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, cost, live vs delayed distinction, and provides an alternative. It doesn't enumerate output fields or error behavior, but for a straightforward read tool backed by high schema coverage, it is sufficiently complete.

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 covers the single parameter with a clear example ('Ticker, e.g. NVDA'), reaching 100% coverage. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond 'one stock' and 'current-session,' so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as 'Live intraday get_stock_read' that returns 'one stock's current-session scores and entry state,' distinguishing it from the delayed sibling tool. It uses a specific resource and scope, and the 'live' qualifier sets it apart from other reads.

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?

It explicitly states when not to use it: 'No wallet? get_stock_read is free, one market day delayed,' naming the alternative. It also conveys real-time use case via 'Live intraday' and adds pricing context, satisfying the explicit alternative criterion.

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