PsiCharge liquidity state (proprietary model, outcomes published)

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

Beyond readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, the description discloses that inputs are proprietary, outcomes are always published, and the result includes a score, state interpretation, stress locality, alarms, and scorecard. It also sets expectations by stating it is not a trade signal or crash predictor, though it does not mention freshness or rate limits.

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 front-loaded with the call trigger and then explains returns, state meanings, and caveats. It is longer than a minimal definition but every part is useful for interpreting the proprietary state labels.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value explanation and does so sufficiently: Psi score range, four state meanings, stress locality, recent alarms, and year-split scorecard. It also discloses proprietary inputs and interpretation limits, making it complete enough for a zero-parameter read tool.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden beyond the schema itself. The description appropriately avoids inventing input details and focuses on triggers and outputs.

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 states a specific resource and output: the market's hidden liquidity state via PsiCharge, including the Psi score and state labels. It clearly distinguishes this from a trade signal or crash predictor, but does not explicitly compare it to sibling tools such as get_macro_liquidity.

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?

It gives a clear trigger: call this when the user asks about hidden liquidity state, PsiCharge, or deploying parked money versus unwinding stress. It does not name alternative tools or explicit when-not-to-use conditions beyond saying it is not a trade signal or crash predictor.

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