get_market_context

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 discloses that live ingest requires API keys and that cached uses a local DB, but it does not mention if the tool is read-only, rate limits, or potential side effects. The behavioral aspects are partially covered.

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 long, front-loading the purpose in the first sentence and parameter specifics in the second. No redundant words; every sentence adds 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?

The tool has three parameters and an output schema (though not shown). The description provides enough to understand the data sources and freshness options but does not detail the output format or how it integrates with sibling tools. Given the output schema exists, return values are covered, but more context on when to use this tool in a workflow 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the assets parameter (default, optional) and the freshness parameter (values and semantics). However, the scope parameter is only given a default value without any explanation of its meaning or allowed values.

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 lists specific components (sentiment, macro events, FRED indicators, ETF flows, market breadth) that clearly define the tool's scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like check_allocation_band which likely focus on different data. However, it lacks an explicit action verb (e.g., 'retrieves') and the phrase 'Fused market backdrop' is somewhat vague.

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 explains the optional assets filter and the two freshness modes (cached vs live) with their prerequisites. It does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives like get_context_at or other siblings, nor does it provide exclusions or 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.