analyze_market_signal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns a snapshot and is not for time series. However, it does not mention authentication, rate limits, or error handling. For a simple analysis tool, the transparency is good but not exhaustive.

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?

Description is concise and front-loaded with key information. It includes a summary, limitations, and references to alternatives. Some redundancy could be trimmed, but overall it is well-structured.

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 is provided, and the description does not specify the return format or fields. Given that there are 5 parameters and no parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete for an agent to fully understand usage.

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 has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain any parameter's meaning, format, or role. It only mentions the composite score and its factors but does not map them to input parameters. This is a significant 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?

Description clearly states it evaluates a composite market signal from 5 factors with a score range of -100 to +100. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning as a starting point for analysis and explicitly names alternatives for detailed analysis and charting.

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?

Description explicitly states it provides only a snapshot of the latest value, not time series. It directs users to prepare_chart_data for charting and lists specific sibling tools for detailed analysis, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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