telegram_velocity

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the algorithm: aggregates per bucket, computes increase rate, detects spikes, and includes baseline_ratio. It does not mention destructive actions or auth needs, but the read-only intent is clear.

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 well-structured with a purpose statement, algorithm explanation, and parameter list. It is slightly verbose but each section adds value. Could be tightened slightly without losing clarity.

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 an output schema exists, the description need not detail return values. It covers the algorithm and all parameters thoroughly. Minor gaps: no mention of data freshness or potential errors, but overall complete for the tool's purpose.

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 coverage is 0%, so description fully compensates. Each parameter (query, bucket_minutes, window_hours, spike_min, top) is explained with its meaning and default. This provides the agent with all necessary context beyond the schema.

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 time-based flow and surge (velocity) of mentions per stock, with specific verb (returns) and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like telegram_momentum and telegram_trending by focusing on velocity over time buckets and baseline ratio.

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 explains behavior when query is omitted but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like telegram_momentum or telegram_trending. It implies usage for velocity analysis but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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