chainvectorMomentum

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the score's interpretation (positive = rising), the range (-100..+100), and the provided metrics. It does not discuss permissions or side effects, but this is a read-only analysis tool, so those are less critical. The semantic guidance adds solid context.

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 compact and information-dense. It front-loads the key output fields and follows with a clear usage rule. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or vague wording.

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 sufficiently explains the return metrics and how to apply them. It covers the key interpretive details (score range, direction, veto threshold). Minor omissions like the exact structure of the per-venue breakdown are acceptable given the tool's analytical nature.

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 already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (type and symbol). The tool description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 identifies this as a cross-venue futures momentum scorecard and specifies the exact output fields (aggregate score, per-venue breakdown, breadth_up, score_dispersion). The scope and nature are unambiguous, distinguishing it from general market data tools.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: use as an EV weight when agreeing with a trade idea and as a veto when |score| >= 60 opposing. This is actionable, though it does not mention alternative tools or explicit when-not-to-use scenarios.

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