base_rates

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

With no annotations present, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal meaningful behavioral context: it returns historical forward-return statistics and identifies active setups based on the latest completed daily bar. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, describe how statistics are computed, or clarify timezone/session details. The description is transparent about output scope but not exhaustive.

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 a single, tight sentence with no filler. It front-loads the main purpose (historical forward-return statistics) and appends the secondary output (active setups). Every phrase adds value, and it avoids repeating the tool name or schema details.

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?

Given there is no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema parameter coverage, the description leaves important gaps. It does not explain how to use as_of or horizon_days, does not describe the shape of the returned statistics, and provides no indication of typical use cases or limitations. An agent would need to guess several details before confidently invoking the 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the input schema's lack of explanations. It only clarifies the symbol context ('on a symbol') and indirectly references the daily bar timing. The as_of and horizon_days parameters are not explained at all, despite horizon_days having a default and as_of being a required-independent string. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent choosing parameter values.

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 main function: providing historical forward-return statistics for setups on a symbol, plus which setups are active on the latest completed daily bar. It is specific about the resource (setups on a symbol) and the two kinds of information returned. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like list_setups, but the core purpose is unmistakable.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_setups or second_opinion. There are no stated conditions, exclusions, or references to sibling tools. While the description implies it is useful for forward-return statistics, it does not say when a user should prefer it over related tools.

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