fahali_get_market_decision

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the description need not cover safety. It does add useful context beyond annotations: it is a thin alias, performs no second computation, returns non-binding committee evidence as part of the output, and a market-wide call 'promotes one row' with decisionSelection to read. That is meaningful behavior disclosure.

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 three sentences and front-loads the primary purpose before listing output contents and the alias/no-recomputation caveat. It is dense but not padded; the main cost is jargon that reduces immediate clarity rather than verbosity.

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?

With an output schema and complete parameter descriptions, the description gives enough context: entry-point role, alias behavior, returned artifacts, and the decisionSelection pointer. Minor gaps remain around what 'decisionSelection' contains and how this differs from related sibling tools, but the core call context is complete.

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%, so the schema already defines limit, since, detail, symbols, includeContagion, and include_withheld. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or semantics beyond schema content, which matches the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states that this is the primary market judgment entry point and a thin alias over the canonical arbiter, and lists what it returns (direction, forecast, record, invalidation, evidence, engine rows, telemetry). That is a clear verb/resource purpose, though the jargon ('canonical arbiter', 'decisionSelection') and lack of explicit distinction from siblings like fahali_get_market_verdict keep it below 5.

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 phrase 'Primary market judgment entry point' implies when to use it, but the description names no alternatives or exclusions despite many sibling tools covering verdicts, symbols, forecasts, and risk. An agent must infer that this is the default market-wide call rather than being told directly.

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