fahali_get_market_verdict

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the internal process (canonical verdict arbiter) and what the response includes (confidence, reasoning chain, etc.). It does not imply destructive behavior, and the read-only nature is evident.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, followed by relevant details. It is slightly verbose but well-structured, with each sentence adding value. Could be slightly more concise but effectively conveys needed 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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the verdict fields (canonical, confidence, reasoning, horizon) and the enrichment option. It covers tier requirements and behavior for omitted symbols. It is fairly complete for a read 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 coverage is 100%. The description adds value by clarifying that omitting symbols returns top signals and that includeContagion enriches with contagion risk, requiring a higher tier. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 tool gets a structured market verdict for symbols, specifying the resource and action. It distinguishes from siblings by detailing the canonical arbiter and included fields like confidence, reasoning chain, and forecast horizon.

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 mentions the tier requirement and that omitting symbols returns top signals, but it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus siblings like fahali_get_market_sentiment or fahali_get_highest_conviction_signals. No 'when-not' or alternative recommendations.

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