market_get_recent_changes

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and does disclose 'NO SIDE EFFECTS', which usefully establishes it as a safe read. It does not describe the shape of the diff output, whether results are bounded/paginated, or what happens when neither timestamp nor generation is supplied (both default to 0).

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then the usage trigger and safety note. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is redundant.

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 two-optional-parameter polling tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, trigger, and safety profile adequately. It could go further by clarifying behavior when both parameters are omitted or how the two parameters interact, but the essentials are present.

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 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the seconds-or-milliseconds format for sinceTimestamp and the meaning of sinceGeneration. The description merely alludes to 'a given timestamp or generation' without adding format, precedence, or default-behavior detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb ('Detect') and enumerates the exact change types returned: structural shifts, new swings, volume spikes, divergences. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like market_detect_structure or market_get_smart_volume, which are point-in-time detectors rather than change detectors.

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 WHEN TO USE clause gives a concrete trigger: polling for what changed since the last analysis turn, with a stated rationale (saving LLM token bandwidth). It does not, however, name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., first-time analysis), so it stops short of explicit exclusions.

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