market_regime

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds transparency by detailing the output (trade directions allowed, regime transitions, 30-bar trend histogram) and the underlying classification logic. No contradictions with annotations; all behavioral traits are disclosed adequately.

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, front-loading the purpose and then providing algorithmic details, output summary, and parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, and the length is appropriate given the absence of schema descriptions. No redundant or empty content.

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 is complete for a read-only tool with three simple parameters. It explains the output (trend, volatility, direction gates, transitions, histogram) without requiring an output schema. However, the exact structure of the returned data (e.g., JSON keys) could be more explicit, but it's sufficient for agent invocation.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates. It explains each parameter: symbol (Binance pair, default BTCUSDT), interval (timeframe, default 4h), and days (history window 1-730, default 180, with warmup constraint). These details add meaning beyond the schema's type and default values.

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's purpose: determining the current market regime (trend up/down/chop) and volatility for a given symbol, using EMA50/EMA200 ratio and ATR% metrics. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like market_sentiment or scanners by focusing on a specific classification method used in bracket backtests, providing unique value.

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 when to use the tool: to get a top-down regime snapshot for a symbol, especially as a prelude to scanning or backtesting. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or list alternatives, but the clear purpose and context imply appropriate usage. The inclusion of default parameters and warmup considerations provides practical guidance.

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