get_sentiment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility and excels: it discloses hourly rebuilds, the three heaviest narratives, measurement time/expiry, composition (news + X chatter + Polymarket odds), 1h/24h/7d changes, a citation line, and explicit error behavior for out-of-scope assets. This gives the agent complete behavioral understanding.

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 dense but efficient, front-loading the core purpose with 'START HERE' and then stacking related details in a logical order. Every sentence adds information, and the structure guides the reader from the primary output to secondary details to scope. Slightly long but justified given the breadth.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain what the call returns — and it does thoroughly: scale, narratives, time/expiry, composition, changes, citation line, and error behavior. It also clarifies non-price tone. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret the result.

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 schema already documents the asset parameter with aliases, and coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly limiting accepted values to BTC/GOLD/OIL and stating that any other asset returns an error rather than a substitute, which is not in the schema. This goes beyond the schema's simple listing.

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 states a specific verb (get sentiment), a precise resource (news-sentiment for Bitcoin, Gold, Oil), and a clear scale (−1..+1). It also differentiates from siblings by explicitly limiting coverage to three assets and noting what it does not do (price forecasting), making it unmistakable which tool to pick.

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?

It opens with 'START HERE', signaling it as the entry point. It explicitly restricts to BTC/GOLD/OIL and warns that other assets return an error. It clarifies it measures tone, not price, and does not forecast, giving context on when not to use it. It does not name sibling tools explicitly, but the guidance is otherwise clear.

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