market_pulse_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does a good job: it reveals DB-backing, a 5-minute cache, 365-day retention with a permanent monthly archive, and one-row-per-day granularity. It stops short of describing ordering, timezone, or missing-day behavior, so it is not a 5.

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 key action and resource, and the later field list adds useful detail such as enums and ranges. However, the first sentence redundantly restates 'Daily historical Market Pulse verdict and confidence', and the field list is repeated in shortened form before being spelled out. It is adequate but not tight.

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 full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it lists all returned fields and their domain types, the data source table, cache behavior, and retention. It does not describe the exact JSON envelope or ordering, which is a minor gap but unlikely to block 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single `days` parameter, including min, max, and default. The description reinforces that `days` maps to daily rows and caps at 90 days, but adds little beyond the schema. The baseline 3 applies here.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get daily Market Pulse history'. It then enumerates the exact signal columns (BUY/SELL/NEUTRAL verdict, confidence %, Fear & Greed, regime, whale buy ratio, leverage suggestion) and the 90-day cap, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling history tools focused on individual metrics like fear_greed_history or leverage_history.

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 description makes the intended context explicit: daily historical Market Pulse data over up to 90 days, one row per day. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use it, but the 'history' framing and retention details make the scope clear. A small gap is the lack of an explicit exclusion pointing to live/snapshot siblings.

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