get_cnn_fear_greed

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It details data returned (current value with comparisons, ~254 business days of history) and the range meaning. No side effects or auth needs are mentioned, but for a read-only data tool, coverage is sufficient.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the index name and scale, fitting essential information without waste.

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 simple data retrieval tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the index meaning, data components, and history length. Minor missing detail is the exact history format, but it's adequate.

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 coverage is 100% for the single optional parameter, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's description of max_history (cutting history length), but it provides output context.

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 names the tool as CNN Fear & Greed Index for US market sentiment, defines the scale (0=fear, 100=greed), and lists specific components (current value with comparisons, daily history). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_kospi_fear_greed.

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 implies usage for retrieving US market sentiment data, contrasting with KOSPI-focused siblings. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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