get_psychology_playbooks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., return characteristics, rate limits). It is consistent but not enriched.

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?

Description is short—two sentences (English then Vietnamese). It is front-loaded with the key concept. The Vietnamese may be redundant for English-only agents but does not add significant clutter.

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 the simplicity (2 optional params, no output schema), the description minimally explains the tool's purpose. It does not describe the return format or what a 'playbook' entails, which could be helpful for new agents.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage for both parameters (category, limit) with descriptions. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or examples beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Name and description clearly indicate the tool retrieves playbooks related to trading psychology, behavioral finance, and fear/greed management. It is well differentiated from sibling playbook tools (e.g., get_macro_playbooks) by the 'psychology' category.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling playbook tools, explicit usage context or exclusion conditions are missing.

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