market_sentiment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is clearly non-destructive. The description adds value by naming the specific indicators returned, but does not disclose data source, update frequency, or whether data is historical or current.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb 'Get' and resource 'market sentiment indicators', followed by a clear list. Every word is necessary; no fluff.

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?

For a parameterless tool without an output schema, the description lists the indicators returned. While it does not specify the return format (e.g., numeric values, arrays), the indicator names are self-explanatory. Slightly more context (e.g., data freshness) would improve completeness, but it is adequate.

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 zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%. Per the rubric, a tool with no parameters receives a baseline score of 4. The description correctly implies no parameters are needed.

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 explicitly states 'Get market sentiment indicators' and lists specific indicators (VIX, Financial Conditions Index, Financial Stress Index, Consumer Sentiment). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like employment_data or inflation_data by focusing on sentiment metrics.

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 use this tool versus alternatives. It does not explain that it provides a snapshot of sentiment, nor does it suggest using other tools for granular economic data. The description simply lists outputs without usage context.

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