econometrics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'Requires tickers' constraint and the indicator list, but it does not describe output shape, p-value conventions, or behavior when required inputs are omitted. With an output schema present, this is acceptable but not especially rich.

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 first three sentences are compact and front-loaded, but the description then appends a 48-item 'Available indicators' list that duplicates the tool's own enum. This creates a long, dense wall of text that undermines conciseness and adds little value for an agent that can already read the enum in the schema.

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?

For a tool with 80 parameters and 48 selectable indicators, the description provides the essential context: what the tests are, when to use them, and the tickers requirement. The presence of an output schema, annotations, and a detailed indicator enum reduces the need to document return formats and every parameter; still, per-indicator selection guidance is absent.

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%, so the baseline is 3 per the rubric. The description adds a tickers requirement and repeats the indicator enum, but it does not add meaningful semantics for the other 79 parameters beyond what the schema already provides, many of which have generic descriptions like 'Value for p.'

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Statistical/econometric tests on price or return series') and enumerates concrete test families such as ADF, Johansen, Granger causality, and ARCH-LM, making the tool's scope unambiguous. It clearly differentiates this tool from sibling metric categories by emphasizing hypothesis testing and inference rather than simple metric calculation.

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 states when to use the tool: 'Use for pairs-trading/spread-modeling foundations or diagnosing return-series properties.' It also gives a concrete invocation hint ('Requires tickers=\'AAPL\''). However, it does not mention when not to use it or point to alternative sibling tools, so it stops short of top-tier guidance.

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