pair_summary

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry the burden. It lists expected outputs but does not disclose if the tool is read-only, requires permissions, or has side effects. The term 'briefing' suggests read-only, but not explicit.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. First sentence efficiently states purpose and outputs, second explains composition. Front-loaded with key information.

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?

With no output schema, description sufficiently lists all returned components. However, it lacks detail on how the output is structured (e.g., separate fields or combined object). Acceptable for a summary tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds minimal extra semantics beyond schema; 'N-day range' hints at the 'days' parameter, but no further clarification on format or usage.

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?

Description clearly states it provides a morning briefing for a currency pair with specific outputs (current rate, N-day range, annualised volatility, send-window verdict, SMA(20)). It also identifies it as a composite of three other tools, distinguishing it from siblings.

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?

Suggests use as a 'one-call morning briefing' and mentions combining three tools, implying it reduces multiple calls. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives like get_rate or volatility_analysis individually.

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