PsiCharge liquidity state (proprietary model, outcomes published)

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly and openWorld hints, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: inputs are proprietary, outcomes are always published, and the tool is not to be over-interpreted as a signal or predictor. It also explains the meanings of each state, helping the agent set user expectations.

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 dense but front-loaded with the invocation trigger, followed by return fields and caveats. It is slightly long, and some information repeats the title, but every part still contributes useful context for selection and use.

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?

For a zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the main return components, defines the state values, and sets expectations. Minor details like what exactly 'stress locality' or 'year-split measured scorecard' contain are left open, but they do not prevent correct invocation.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no semantic gap to fill; this matches the baseline 4. The description reinforces that no user-supplied inputs are required by stating inputs are proprietary.

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 identifies the resource (PsiCharge hidden liquidity state), the exact subject matter (parked money deploying, stress unwinding), and the returned fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling market-data tools by focusing on a proprietary liquidity-state model rather than generic market metrics.

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 opens with an explicit 'Call this when the user asks...' trigger, which is strong usage guidance. It also gives exclusions ('Not a trade signal, not a crash predictor'), but it does not name alternative sibling tools or state when another tool should be chosen instead.

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