Point-in-time sentiment history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds critical behavioral details: no lookahead, clamped time ranges, echoed parameters, and reconstruction provenance. This significantly aids agent understanding.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and key constraints. Each sentence adds essential information without redundancy. Highly efficient.

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?

No output schema provided, so the description should cover response structure more fully. It mentions echoed parameters and reconstruction flags but omits other fields like timestamps, sentiment values, or pagination. This leaves gaps for an agent relying solely on the description.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions 'bucket' as the as-of time, but the schema parameter is 'interval', causing potential confusion. It does not elaborate on other parameters like symbol or interval beyond schema descriptions.

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 provides a point-in-time sentiment series for backtesting, with no lookahead. It distinguishes from siblings like get_sentiment by emphasizing historical, non-live data and the concept of reconstructed buckets.

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 guidance on plan window clamping and the 90-day limit, and advises checking echoed parameters. It mentions reconstruction but could more explicitly contrast with siblings (e.g., use get_sentiment for live data).

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