资产泡沫监视

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals an analytical perspective (volume contraction as a crash precursor), which is meaningful context, but it does not disclose data sources, update frequency, or whether it returns a risk score or raw signals. The output schema partially compensates, but operational behavior remains under-specified.

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 short, information-dense sentences; the core monitoring purpose is front-loaded and the heuristic adds value without padding. Every word 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?

For a single-optional-parameter tool with an output schema, the description gives a clear scope and an analytical framework. It is slightly incomplete in explaining what form the monitored output takes, but given the simple parameter surface and existing output schema, it is adequately complete.

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%, and the region parameter is already documented with its allowed values (china/japan/korea/all). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 the tool monitors asset bubble risk across Asia-Pacific, naming specific indicators like real estate transaction volume, housing prices, and equity valuation divergence. It is a specific verb+resource combination, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from closely related market-monitoring siblings.

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 intended use case is implied: use this tool when assessing whether Asia-Pacific asset bubbles are forming or deflating. The heuristic 'volume falls before price' provides domain context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as market_overview or sector_valuation.

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