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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a read operation ('read'), that it never reads your entry or size, and that it charges $0.005 USDC per call. It also notes the live intraday nature. While it does not mention error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements, the key behavioral facts (pricing, read-only nature, scope) are transparently stated. A small gap remains regarding what exactly 'read' implies in terms of data access.

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 paragraph but packs multiple useful facts without fluff. It front-loads the core purpose, then follows with capacity, behavior, fallback alternative, and pricing. Each sentence contributes value. It is slightly dense but not verbose, earning a 4 rather than a 5 because it could be organized into clearer bullet points.

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 parameter, no output schema), the description fairly completely covers what the agent needs: what data is returned (via the enumerated fields), the pricing, the capacity, and the alternative. It does not detail error scenarios or rate limits, but for a 1-parameter live read with a known sibling, this is adequate. A 4 reflects minor omissions rather than significant gaps.

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 fully describes the single parameter `symbol` (including comma-separated up to 10 tickers), and the description only repeats that capacity ('Up to 10 symbols in one call'). No additional semantic value is added beyond the schema. Per the rubric, with >80% coverage the baseline is 3; the description adds no extra meaning for this parameter.

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+resource: 'Live intraday get_hold_state' and explicitly clarifies it is the 'SELL-SIDE read on names you already hold.' It enumerates the exact outputs (trend state, hold strength, readiness, etc.), which distinguishes it from the delayed sibling get_hold_state by contrasting price and delay. This gives an agent a precise understanding of what the tool does and how it differs from its closest 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?

The description tells when to use it versus the alternative: 'No wallet? get_hold_state is the same read, free, one market day delayed.' This provides an explicit condition for choosing the non-live sibling. It also states capacity ('Up to 10 symbols in one call') and clarifies it is not for trade instructions ('Conditions, never instructions'), making the appropriate use case unambiguous.

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