momentum_score

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add two useful facts: the verdict is produced by the oracle.py pipeline on a separate Python service, and the tool is scoped to 10 assets. But it says nothing about latency, auth requirements, rate limits, staleness of the verdict, or failure behavior for an out-of-scope symbol.

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 core sentence is duplicated almost verbatim, wasting roughly half the text. The pipeline/scoping detail is buried inside that copy instead of being front-loaded, and the only unique content (the example) sits at the end.

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 must carry return-value information — and it does enumerate the verdict fields, which is genuinely helpful. But it omits how to interpret the verdict (signal thresholds, confidence scale) and gives no usage context, leaving the definition only minimally complete for an analytics 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters are self-documenting (enumerated symbol set, typical timeframe values with default). The description's example query restates the parameters but adds no semantics beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline.

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 names a specific resource (momentum verdict) and enumerates its outputs (bias, confidence, thesis, entry/invalidation/targets, signal readings), so an agent can tell it is a momentum-analytics tool rather than a raw price feed. However, it never distinguishes itself from momentum-adjacent siblings like funding_oi, long_short_ratio, or sentiment, and the statement is delivered twice.

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?

There is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus sentiment, ohlcv, atr, volatility, or the other analytics siblings. The only usage hint is a URL example showing symbol/timeframe parameters, which shows how to call it but not when.

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