divergence_alerts

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description confirms 'Get active correlation breakdowns', consistent with a read-only operation. The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: it specifies that the tool includes 'severity, implication, and momentum shift detection', which informs the agent of the output's richness.

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 filler. The first sentence clearly states the tool's main function, and the second adds key details. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview by naming three types of information returned (severity, implication, momentum shift detection). However, it does not specify the format (e.g., list, object, table), which would enhance 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 no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). Since there are no parameters, the description does not need to explain them, and the default baseline of 4 applies.

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 uses a specific verb 'get' and identifies the resource as 'active correlation breakdowns between macro instruments'. It provides a concrete example (DXY and Gold both rising = systemic fear) and lists included content (severity, implication, momentum shift detection). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on capital rotation, cascades, or market regimes.

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 use cases via the example and the phrase 'correlation breakdowns', but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like market_sentiment or cascade_analysis. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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