quant_score_decision

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description reinforces deterministic behavior ('Same inputs always yield the same output') and explains internal sub-factors and news veto logic. No contradictions; description adds valuable context beyond annotations.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement and separate Args/Returns sections. It front-loads the main action. However, some details (e.g., sub-factor list) could be more concise without losing essential information.

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 the tool's complexity, the description covers inputs, outputs, and references to sibling tools. It explains the decision logic and return structure. Missing details like exact threshold or formula are reasonable omissions. The description is complete enough for an agent to understand usage.

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?

The schema includes detailed descriptions for all parameters (e.g., setup, equity, risk_pct). The description supplements this by summarizing how parameters combine into a composite score. While schema covers specifics, the description provides a high-level overview that aids understanding.

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 states the verb ('score and decide') and resource ('setup'), with the outcome 'ENTRY / NO_ENTRY'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by highlighting it is a pure function and decision helper, avoiding confusion.

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 explains the tool's role as a decision helper and mentions it is a pure function. It provides context on when to use it (after quant_analyze_setup) and how the agent should derive inputs like news sentiment. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool over alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.

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