signallord_get_composite_score

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by explaining the composite's derivation from 6 gauges and the interpretation of scores, which annotations do not cover. No contradictions.

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?

Two concise, front-loaded paragraphs. Every sentence adds meaningful information: tool purpose, score interpretation, and composition. No redundancy or fluff.

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 no required parameters and a clear output (output schema exists), the description covers all necessary context: what the score represents, how to interpret it, and what it comprises. Complete and sufficient.

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%, but the only parameter (response_format) is optional with a default of 'json'. The description does not explain this parameter, but its purpose is obvious. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given minimal parameter complexity.

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 it gets a composite Bitcoin market score on a 0-100 scale, with interpretation thresholds (above 70 bullish, below 30 bearish). This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like gauge_breakdown.

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 a quick overall market sentiment check but does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. No sibling tools are named for comparison.

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