Market Concentration

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 explaining the power-law framing, percentile bands, and the specific computed output fields. This goes beyond the structured annotations and helps the agent understand what the tool actually reports.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core concept ('Power-law shape of trader profits'), followed by concrete output details and a direct usage question. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it conveys the analytical purpose, the returned fields, and the intended question it answers. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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%, since the only parameter useToonFormat is fully described in the schema. The tool description does not add parameter-specific detail, but given the single well-documented boolean parameter, no additional compensation is needed. Baseline 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 the tool's function: analyzing the power-law shape of trader profits via percentile bands and their share of total profits. It enumerates the exact return fields (band label, wallet count, band PnL, % of total profits, rank range), making the tool's purpose specific and distinguishable from typical profit or leaderboard tools.

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 an explicit use case: 'how concentrated is alpha — do the top 1% take everything?'. This gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, so it falls just short of a 5.

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