macro_indicators

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains that the yield curve spread being negative indicates a recession signal, and lists all returned fields with brief interpretation. It does not mention data freshness, update frequency, or any limitations, but for a simple snapshot tool, the transparency is adequate.

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 only three sentences, with the purpose front-loaded. It is concise with no redundant or extraneous information. Every sentence serves a clear purpose: stating the function, listing outputs, and suggesting usage.

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 tool has no parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema (context signals indicate 'Has output schema: true'), the description is complete. It explains the output in a way that compensates for the lack of annotations and provides sufficient context for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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 zero parameters, and the description adds value by explaining each of the returned indicators and their meaning (e.g., negative spread = recession signal). This exceeds the baseline of 4 for no-parameter tools, as it enables an agent to correctly interpret the output.

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 returns a 'US macroeconomic regime snapshot' with specific indicators (fed funds rate, yield curve spread, etc.). It directly names the resource (macro indicators) and verb (returns/snapshot). While it pairs well with siblings like equity_analysis and portfolio_risk, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from similar data tools in the sibling list, such as wealth_pulse or stablecoin_pulse.

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 explicitly suggests using the tool to 'assess whether macro conditions favor risk-on or risk-off positioning.' It also mentions pairing with equity_analysis() and portfolio_risk(). However, it does not provide exclusions or alternatives for when not to use this tool, leaving some ambiguity among the many sibling tools.

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