Measured FOMC impact on Bitcoin

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: the data is measured from a minute-resolution record and is descriptive rather than predictive, plus it discloses the shape of results. Beyond annotations, no gaps or return-format issues remain, though pagination/error behavior is unstated.

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 sentences, front-loaded with when to call, then what is returned. Every clause earns its place, including the 'Description, not prediction' caveat that prevents misuse.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing return values — and it does so thoroughly (per-window reactions, benchmark average, up/down split, next meeting date). Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to clarify or omit.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (measured FOMC impact on BTC) and precisely enumerates what it returns: 5/30/60-minute reactions, average versus a normal half hour, up/down split, next meeting date. It is clearly distinct from siblings like get_macro_liquidity or get_tradfi_board.

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?

Gives explicit triggering conditions — 'what Bitcoin does on Fed days', 'how FOMC statements move crypto', 'when the next FOMC meeting is' — which is strong context. It does not name a sibling alternative or state when-not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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