pulse_cohort_bias_history

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. Discloses return content (net long/short notional and account counts), supports per-coin or global aggregate, and max range of 30 days. Lacks explicit read-only flag but behavior is clearly non-destructive.

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?

Five sentences, each adding unique value: main function, return contents, use case, options, constraint. No redundancy, front-loaded, and efficient.

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?

Despite 5 parameters and no output schema, description covers inputs well and gives clear purpose. Lacks output structure details, but the stated return content (net notional, counts) is sufficient for typical use. Sibling context is broad but this tool stands out.

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%, baseline 3. Description adds context for 'coin' (example with builder dex prefix) and 'since' (max 30 days), but other parameters (endTime, startTime, useToonFormat) are not elaborated beyond schema. Adequate but not exceptional.

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?

Clearly states the tool retrieves historical hourly bias snapshots for trader cohorts, returning net long/short notional and account counts per tier. Differentiates from live_cohort_bias (current snapshot) and pulse_cohort_history (likely different aggregation) by specifying 'hourly' and 'bias' focus.

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?

Provides explicit use case: 'use this to see how different groups have shifted their positioning over time.' While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use or name alternatives, the context is clear and sufficient for an agent to decide.

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