get_fed_policy_signals

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

The description adds context beyond annotations: it mentions the single-call nature, the included indicators, and the AI-derived regime interpretation. It does not contradict any annotations (readOnlyHint, etc.). It also clarifies the API key requirement, which is not in annotations.

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 and well-structured: purpose first, then details, then use case, then requirement. Every sentence adds value 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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain the return format. It mentions 'AI-derived regime interpretation' but not the structure (e.g., JSON object, string). For a tool returning multiple indicators, more detail on output shape would improve 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?

The input schema has one optional boolean parameter (use_cache) with a default, which is self-explanatory. The description does not mention this parameter or add any additional meaning. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description misses an opportunity to clarify, but the parameter is simple.

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 specifies the tool's purpose: retrieving 7 Fed policy indicators with AI-derived regime interpretation, and lists exact indicators. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_macro_signals and get_current_regime by focusing on this specific set.

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 states the use case ('for MNQ/NQ regime context before trading sessions') and a requirement ('Requires FRED_API_KEY'). However, it does not provide when-not-to-use or list alternative tools for different contexts.

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