market_trending

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

No annotations provided. The description does not mention whether the tool is read-only, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or any side effects. It only states the output type without behavioral context.

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 very concise (one sentence), but it is too sparse. It could be restructured to include parameter guidance or usage hints without adding verbosity.

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 lack of output schema, no parameter descriptions, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not help an agent understand how to use the parameters or what the 'largest price movement' means (e.g., absolute or percentage, direction).

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 has 3 parameters (country, line, limit) with 0% description coverage in the schema. The description does not explain any parameter meanings, acceptable values, or defaults beyond the schema's bare names and types. The default limit of 10 is not mentioned.

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 that the tool returns products with the largest price movement in the last 7 days. The '[Intel]' prefix hints at usage context, though not explicit. It distinguishes from siblings like 'market_price_alerts' or 'market_inflation' by focusing on recent price movement magnitude.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when 'Intel' tools are appropriate, or how it differs from other market tools like 'market_scores' or 'market_stats'.

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