get_buy_momentum_assets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It meaningfully explains that the tool shows assets where politicians are net buyers (more buys than sells) and mentions scoring based on volume and conviction. This adds value beyond the tool name and gives insight into how results are derived, though it does not discuss data freshness or limitations.

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 consists of two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the primary action and resource, followed by clarifying detail. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with only two optional parameters and no output schema. The description explains what the tool does and the core behavioral logic, which is sufficient for a user to understand when to use it and what to expect. It could be slightly more complete with explicit mention of output format, but that is not essential given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (days and limit), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description does not add any additional parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema states, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with 'Get assets' immediately indicating the action and resource, and specifies the asset types (stocks, ETFs, mutual funds, bonds) and the specific filter (high buy momentum from politician trading activity). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_top_traded_assets, which likely covers all trades volume, whereas this focuses on buy momentum.

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 provides clear context: use this tool when you want to see assets with high buy momentum from political trading. It implies a specific use case without explicitly stating when not to use it or naming alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough to guide selection among siblings.

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