signallord_get_capitulation_score

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: score range (0-100), meaning of high values (panic selling under leverage unwind), and that components are returned. It does not contradict annotations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the key composite definition, followed by range and interpretation, then additional details about components and source. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 an output schema present, return values are covered. The description explains the composite, components, source payload, and interpretation of scores. It is complete for a read-only data retrieval tool, though it omits details like update frequency or pagination.

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 only one optional parameter (response_format) with no description coverage. The tool description does not mention this parameter, failing to add semantics for it. The parameter is trivial, but given 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate.

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 defines the tool as returning a 'Capitulation Index' composite score from 0-100, composed of specific metrics (volume anomaly, liquidation surge, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'signallord_get_composite_score' by specifying the unique composite and that components are returned.

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 implies usage for detecting capitulation conditions but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'signallord_get_composite_score' or other indicators. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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