sentiment_monthly

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well. It discloses that data is aggregated before purge, never deleted, excludes months with fewer than 20 daily records, requires no authentication, has a 60 req/min rate limit, and is cached for 5 minutes. This is far beyond typical transparency.

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 tool's identity and immediately explains the return format, filtering, constraints, and operational traits. The slight redundancy of repeating 'archive' could be trimmed, but every other sentence 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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description fully compensates: it names every returned field, explains the aggregation, exclusion rule, filtering option, coverage, authentication, rate limit, and cache behavior. An agent has enough to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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 schema already documents the optional symbol parameter and its behavior, and the description reinforces it with a concrete example ('BTC'). Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds marginal but not essential value beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score.

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 clear verb ('Returns'), a specific resource ('permanent monthly archive of social sentiment per token'), and the exact row granularity ('one row per token per calendar month'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling daily/history tools by emphasizing 'permanent' and 'Never deleted', making its purpose unambiguous.

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 use clear: it is a monthly aggregate view filtered by optional symbol, with no authentication and a 60 req/min limit. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops just short of a 5.

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