signallord_get_pi_cycle

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds value by mentioning the output field 'current.cross_state' and the historical reliability, exceeding what annotations convey. No contradictions found.

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 extremely concise, using two sentences that front-load the core question and immediately provide context. Every sentence earns its place with no superfluous words.

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 the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and a key output field. It is mostly complete, though it could briefly mention the effect of the 'days' parameter on the output.

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 description does not mention any parameters, leaving both 'days' and 'response_format' undocumented despite the input schema having only 50% coverage. The description fails to add meaning beyond the schema's minimal descriptions.

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 identifies the Pi Cycle Top indicator by checking if the 111-day MA crossed 2x the 350-day MA. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on this specific cycle-top signal, making it clear what resource is analyzed.

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 provides clear context that this is a historically reliable cycle-top warning, implying it should be used for top detection. However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for most use cases.

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