fahali_get_dark_pool_activity

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explicitly discloses that the data is a proxy from public microstructure, not actual off-exchange measurements. It also states the engine coverage and tier requirement. This is transparent for a non-destructive read tool.

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?

Three short sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, the second adds a critical caveat, and the third provides scope and access info. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers what the tool returns (symbols, score, patterns, sentiment, ML breakdown) and the data limitation. There is no output schema to supplement. Minor gaps include lack of score interpretation or data frequency, but it is fairly complete for a parameterless 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?

There are zero parameters in the input schema, so the description need not add parameter details. The baseline for no params is 4. The description does not add anything beyond what the schema provides, but it correctly implies no input is needed.

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 it retrieves dark pool proxy estimates and lists output components (score, patterns, sentiment, ML breakdown). It specifies it is a proxy and covers the 'dark_pool engine'. While it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, the verb and resource are specific enough.

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 notes 'Public data — no tier required', implying broad accessibility. However, it does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage context is only implied.

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