generate_alpha_signal

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses two key traits: the model is a mock and the call has no order side effects. However, it omits details about return shape, errors, or feature-vector requirements, so disclosure is partial.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core action and output are front-loaded, and the crucial safety clarification 'never places an order' is included without 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?

For a simple two-parameter mock tool, the purpose and side-effect profile are clear, and an output schema exists so return-value details are not required. The only notable gap is the unexplained 'features' parameter, but overall the description is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning for either parameter. 'symbol' is weakly inferable from the name, but 'features' is entirely unexplained—no length, ordering, or normalization context. The description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 names a specific action ('Run'), the resource ('mock PyTorch GNN'), and the output ('alpha score'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from order-placing siblings with 'never places an order', making its purpose unmistakable.

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 phrase 'Informational only; never places an order' gives a clear context and an explicit when-not-to-use boundary. It does not name alternative siblings like market_snapshot or specify when to prefer this one, but the informational intent is clearly conveyed.

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