fahali_get_market_verdict

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 does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or disclose any side effects. However, the verb 'Get' and the listing of return values imply no mutations. Still, more explicit behavioral context would improve transparency.

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 with no redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose and outputs, then adds the optional feature and tier requirement. Every sentence is substantive and well-structured.

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 description covers the main outputs and tier requirement but omits the behavior when symbols are omitted (the schema states omitting returns top signals across all symbols). This is important for agent decision-making. Given the tool's simplicity, the description could be more complete.

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 100%, so the parameters (symbols, includeContagion) are already well-described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it only reiterates the optional contagion feature. Thus, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'structured market verdict for one or more symbols'. It enumerates the output fields (direction, confidence, reasoning chain, expected move percentage, forecast horizon) and distinguishes from sibling tools (capital flow, contagion map, portfolio risk) by its unique output.

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 implies usage for retrieving market verdicts and states a prerequisite ('Requires Professional tier or higher'). However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention 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.