live_cohort_bias

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool is read-only ('See what... returns the net long/short bias') and real-time ('RIGHT NOW'), but it does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, data freshness guarantees, or what happens on missing data. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 long, front-loaded with the core action, and includes a helpful example question. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and use case. However, it lacks details on possible error conditions, the exact output structure (e.g., list of tiers with bias values), and any limitations. It is adequate but not thorough.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add details about the parameters beyond what the schema already provides—it mentions the coin symbol and format implicitly via the example, but does not elaborate on valid values for 'useToonFormat' or the structure of the returned bias data.

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 uses a specific verb ('See what each trader cohort is doing') and clearly identifies the resource (cohort bias on a given coin). It distinguishes from the sibling 'live_cohort_bias_history' by emphasizing 'RIGHT NOW', and provides concrete examples of tiers (Apex, Sharps, Middleweights).

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 includes a concrete use case question ('are the Sharps traders long or short ETH?') that tells the agent when to invoke this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast it with alternatives like 'live_cohort_bias_history' or 'pulse_cohort_summary'.

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