get_global_vs_korea_divergence_deep

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral traits: 5-minute cache, $0.10 per call cost, and x402 micropayment requirement. It also outlines return fields (light response plus news signal and AI analysis). No contradictions.

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 relatively long and includes payment/pricing details that may not be essential for tool selection. While the first sentence is clear, the additional implementation details add clutter. It is not optimally concise.

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?

Given the existence of an output schema and the complexity of the tool (deep analysis with news and AI), the description covers purpose, output structure, caching, and payment. It assumes some domain knowledge about 'light data' but is mostly complete.

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 100% with a detailed list of accepted symbols. The tool description does not add further meaning beyond the schema, but it provides context that the symbol is used for divergence analysis with Korean news. 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 clearly states 'Deep tier' and specifies the combination of light data, Korean news signals, and structured AI breakdown. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'get_global_vs_korea_divergence' by implying a deeper analysis.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'deep tier' but fails to specify when not to use it or provide explicit context for selecting this over the lighter version. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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