get_party_buy_momentum

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It describes the output categories and the 'detailed buy/sell breakdowns,' which helps set expectations. However, it does not address potential behaviors such as sorting, default parameter effects, or whether the data is real-time or historical, leaving some ambiguity.

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 main purpose, and then enumerates the specific categories returned. Every sentence adds valuable detail without redundancy or wasted words.

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 description sufficiently explains the tool's scope and output categories for a read-only analytical tool. It mentions consensus assets, party favorites, and breakdowns, which gives a clear picture of the returned data. However, without an output schema, more detail on the exact response structure could enhance completeness, but it is not a major gap.

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) with enums and defaults, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional information about these parameters, so it does not enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema already offers.

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 function: retrieving buy momentum data specifically broken down by political party. It further distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the distinct categories (consensus, Democrat favorites, Republican favorites), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 the tool is for party-based buy momentum analysis, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like get_buy_momentum_assets or get_top_traded_assets. There are no exclusion criteria or mention of intended scenarios, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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