telegram_momentum

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, has rate limits, or any side effects. While it's a query tool, transparency requires explicit statements about safety, which are absent.

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 structured well with an intro sentence, usage guideline, and a clear Args list. It is concise enough but might be more compact; still, every sentence serves a purpose.

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 that an output schema exists (so return details are covered), the description adequately explains inputs and usage. It could mention output format briefly, but overall it is complete for a tool with clear parameters and siblings.

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%, but the description compensates thoroughly by explaining each parameter (hours, baseline_hours, top, kind) with default values and allowed values for kind. This fully adds meaning beyond the schema structure.

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 stocks with recent mention surges compared to a baseline period, and distinguishes it from telegram_search for non-stock queries. The verb 'return' and resource 'stocks with momentum' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (stock code matching) and when not (macro/geo/theme questions should use telegram_search). Provides clear alternative, leaving no ambiguity.

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