Daily report context

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the output is 'computed' and 'compact,' but does not disclose whether the call has side effects, whether it triggers expensive computation, how symbols affect the result, or any permissions or data dependencies. This is a meaningful transparency gap.

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 short sentences with no redundant filler. The main purpose and the key usage constraint are front-loaded, and every clause adds signal. This is appropriately concise and well structured.

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?

Although an output schema exists and can describe return values, the description still leaves essential gaps: parameter semantics are unexplained, computation behavior is vague, and there is no guidance about prerequisites or side effects. For a tool with no annotations and no schema-level parameter documentation, this is insufficient.

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 0%, and the description does not mention trade_date or symbols at all. It refers to SH, V, and JM in the output scope, but never explains how these relate to the parameters or what values are valid. The agent gets no help understanding the input contract beyond raw names.

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 states a specific action ('Return') and a specific resource ('compact computed packet for SH, V, and JM'), so an agent can tell roughly what the tool produces. It also marks itself as 'the only market payload that should enter the report context,' which helps differentiate it from sibling report and data tools, though it does not name those alternatives.

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 gives clear usage context: this is the only market payload that should enter the report context, implying it should be used for report construction rather than raw data collection or storage. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternatives, but the 'only market payload' phrasing provides a strong selection rule.

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