Live Cohort Bias

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying the metric returned (net long/short bias per tier) and the live temporal scope. No contradiction; the extra detail goes beyond the annotation safety profile.

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?

Three short sentences convey purpose, output, and a concrete example. The first sentence and second sentence overlap slightly ('what each trader cohort is doing' vs 'net long/short bias'), but the example question earns its place and the overall description is tight and readable.

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 simple read-only tool with fully documented parameters, the description adequately explains the resource, the metric, and the live scope. There is no output schema, so the description's mention of per-tier net bias helps fill that gap. It could mention tier definitions or data latency, but these are not essential for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, and both coin and useToonFormat already have clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add parameter-level detail, but the schema fully carries that burden, so baseline 3 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?

Description states a specific verb ('See... Returns') with a precise resource: net long/short bias per trader cohort on a given coin, right now. It names example tiers (Apex, Sharps, Middleweights) and gives a concrete question it answers, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from history-oriented 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?

The 'RIGHT NOW' phrasing and example question clearly establish this as the tool for current, real-time cohort bias. It does not explicitly name alternatives like live_cohort_bias_history, but the live-vs-history contrast is strongly implied and the use case is concrete.

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