alphapulse

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions per-endpoint costs ($0.10) but does not address side effects, rate limits, idempotency, or whether the tool is read-only. The behavioral disclosure is minimal.

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 excessively long, listing all endpoints and costs. It is not front-loaded; the most critical information (what the tool does) is mixed with a lengthy catalog. Several sentences could be removed for clarity.

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 high parameter count (20) and lack of output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how parameters interact with endpoints, provide examples, or specify response structure. An agent would struggle to invoke it correctly without further knowledge.

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%, but many parameter descriptions are vague (e.g., 'lang', 'instrument'). The tool description adds endpoint names and costs but does not clarify parameter usage, dependencies, or valid values beyond the schema's enum for 'action'.

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 is an 'alternative trading intelligence API' and lists specific endpoints, indicating what the tool does. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on alternative trading, but the purpose could be more direct and less cluttered.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description merely lists endpoints and costs, without any context on typical use cases or exclusions (e.g., when to prefer another pulse tool).

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