indicators_regime-classify

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the tool is safe and idempotent. The description adds behavioral context: it combines multiple indicators, requires at least 30 closing prices, returns specific fields (trend direction, volatility regime, RSI, SMA, strategy suggestion), and is paid-only. This goes beyond the 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 concise: two short paragraphs. The first line acts as a title summarizing the tool's output. Every sentence adds value—purpose, usage context, requirements, returns, and access restriction. No superfluous content.

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 has 7 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the goal, inputs (min 30 closes), and outputs (trend, vol, RSI, SMA, strategy suggestion). It does not detail return formats or optional parameter usage, but the schema covers parameter descriptions, so completeness is high.

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% (all 7 parameters have descriptions). The description only mentions 'closing prices (min 30)' which is already in the schema. No additional parameter semantics are added beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline.

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's purpose: 'Combined regime classification: trend, vol, RSI, direction, strategy suggestion.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by saying it 'Replaces technical + regime + realized-vol,' indicating it consolidates multiple separate calls into one.

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 specifies when to use this tool: 'Use when you need a complete market regime assessment... Instead of calling technical + regime + realized-vol separately.' It also provides a prerequisite ('Provide closing prices (min 30)') and notes that it's 'PAID ONLY — no free tier,' guiding the agent on appropriate use.

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