signal_context_bundle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states that the tool 'builds' a bundle. It does not mention that this likely fetches external data from multiple APIs, whether any default sources are always included, what happens when optional sources are enabled without API keys, or whether the operation is read-only. The 'compact' qualifier implies a trimmed output but its behavioral implications are unexplained.

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 a single sentence with the action front-loaded: 'Build a compact cross-source signal bundle.' The parenthetical source list is efficient and easy to scan. It loses a point because the terseness obscures several important operational details, but as a structural matter it is compact and well-ordered.

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 high complexity (14 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is far from sufficient for correct invocation. It does not clarify which parameters are required versus optional in practice, how to specify the target symbol, what 'compact' changes, what output shape to expect, or how defaults like include_sec=true and include_zacks=true affect the bundle. The one-sentence overview gives the tool's role but not enough to use it reliably.

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 0% across 14 parameters, so the description must compensate, but it only maps high-level source categories to the include_* flags. It provides no guidance on the critical parameters: compact, symbol vs symbols, exchange/market defaults, fred_series_id, or the API key fields. The phrase 'optional FRED macro' is misleading because the schema has no include_fred parameter, leaving the trigger for FRED inclusion unclear.

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 uses a specific verb ('Build') and a clear resource ('compact cross-source signal bundle'), and enumerates the bundled sources (TradingView, SEC, Zacks/FMP/Polygon, FRED), which distinguishes it from single-source sibling tools. It stops short of a 5 because it never clarifies what a 'signal bundle' concretely contains or produces, and 'optional FRED macro' is ambiguous given the schema has no include_fred flag.

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 implies usage when a multi-source, cross-source signal bundle is desired, and the source list hints at when this might be preferred over single-source siblings like tv_scrape_symbol_full or sec_filings_recent. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when NOT to use it, no comparison to alternative bundle tools like avanza_tv_preopen_portfolio_bundle, and no conditions or prerequisites such as API keys needed.

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