Régimen risk-on / risk-off

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully discloses the analytical methodology (a composite of flows, VIX, credit spread proxy, copper/gold), which helps an agent interpret the result, but it says nothing about update frequency, data freshness, or confidence/caveats.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence: the purpose leads, then the composite inputs follow. No filler, though the trailing input list is dense and slightly run-on.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the burden of return semantics, yet it never states what is actually returned (a regime label, a score, a direction?). It also omits usage context relative to sibling analysis tools, so an agent can tell what it computes but not exactly what it gets back or when to prefer it.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a parameterless, whole-market call with no filtering options to explain.

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 states a specific analytical verb ('Determina') and a clear target concept (risk-on/risk-off regime), then enumerates the exact inputs it composites (flows, VIX, HYG vs IEF, copper/gold). This distinguishes it in substance from siblings like get_liquidity_overview or get_macro_liquidity_history, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this tool versus alternatives such as get_liquidity_overview, get_macro_liquidity_history, or get_capital_flows. Usage is only inferable from the concept of a risk regime; no context, prerequisites, or exclusions are given.

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