get_asset_momentum

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and performs well: it documents the complete output structure including ranges (confidence_score -100 to +100), enum states (volatility states), and constituent metrics, effectively compensating for the missing output schema.

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?

Extremely efficient two-sentence structure: defines the tool, enumerates return values with ranges/states, lists valid timeframes, and states the use case. Every clause delivers value with zero 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?

Comprehensive for a 2-parameter tool. Given the lack of an output schema, the description meticulously documents all return fields, value ranges, and categorical states, leaving no critical gaps for 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?

Schema coverage is 100% (both 'asset' and 'timeframe' are well-documented in the schema), establishing a baseline of 3. The description repeats the timeframe options and implies broader asset support ('any asset') but adds minimal semantic depth beyond the schema definitions.

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?

Description states a specific operation ('Short-term momentum signal') on a specific resource ('any asset') and distinguishes itself from sentiment-focused siblings like get_sentiment_state or get_narrative_pulse by listing technical indicators (RSI, Bollinger bandwidth, ATR).

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?

Provides clear usage context ('Essential for timing entries and exits'), indicating when to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with similar analysis siblings (e.g., get_alternative_signals) or state when NOT to use it.

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