get_editorial_premium

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It describes inputs (price return and coverage delta) and the lag range, but does not specify output format, return type, or any side effects. This is minimally acceptable but leaves gaps.

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 three sentences, front-loads the purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool's complexity (correlation with lags) and lack of output schema, the description should clarify the return type (e.g., single number or series) and how to interpret 'coverage delta'. The supported windows are limited to two, leaving the agent with some ambiguity.

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%, but the schema only gives basic descriptions. The description adds concrete valid values for 'window' ('30d, 90d') and context about lags, enhancing understanding beyond the schema.

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 it computes 'Correlation of price return to coverage delta (lagged -1 to +3 days)', uses a specific verb ('get'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_price and get_coverage_index by its focus on correlation with lags.

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 mentions 'Pro tier' and 'Measures pre-coverage accumulation edge', which hints at use cases, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_history_correlation, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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