chainvectorRegime

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. It discloses the output fields (regime, direction, 0-1 confidence, rationale) and the decision mapping to strategy templates. While it does not mention side effects or auth requirements, as a classifier these are not expected, making the behavior sufficiently transparent.

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, both dense with information: the first defines the output taxonomy and fields, and the second explains the strategy mapping. There is no filler or redundancy, making it concise 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?

For a single-parameter classifier with no output schema, the description provides a complete picture: it states the output structure and how to interpret the result for strategy selection. Some details like the meaning of direction values are lacking, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role and usage.

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 schema covers 100% of the parameter with a clear description ('Base asset, e.g. BTC'), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so a score 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 it as a market regime classifier with a specific list of regimes (trending, choppy, quiet, squeeze_setup, cascading) and output fields (direction, confidence, rationale). It distinguishes from sibling tools like chainvectorMomentum by explaining that the regime governs which strategy template applies, making its role unique.

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 provides explicit guidance on how the output maps to strategy selection (trending -> momentum, choppy/quiet -> meanrev, etc.), which implies when to use the tool (to decide which strategy template to apply). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use it, leaving some room for ambiguity.

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