market_stress

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it says nothing about whether the call is read-only, how often it can be called, or what score scale/thresholds distinguish 'stressed' from 'calm'. It only lists the input components, leaving the interpretation of the output to the 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; every clause describes an actual input component. It is perhaps slightly list-like but appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 output schema covers return values and the description covers input composition, which is adequate for a read-only metric tool. However, the unexplained 'detail' parameter and absent interpretation guidance (score ranges, thresholds) leave gaps an agent would want filled before calling.

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?

There is one parameter ('detail', default 'short') with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it or its possible values. The description therefore adds no meaning beyond the schema for the single non-trivial argument.

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?

Names the specific resource (a composite market-stress score) and enumerates the four inputs it is built from, which is more informative than a generic 'get market data'. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling 'markets_snapshot', so an agent must infer the difference between a snapshot and a synthesized stress score.

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?

No guidance on when to prefer this over 'markets_snapshot', 'get_situation', or 'deep_analyze', and no stated preconditions or exclusions. The agent is left to guess the intended use case from the sentence alone.

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