Get market predictions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It states 'Read-only' at the end, clearly indicating the tool does not modify data. It also reveals that the free tier returns a limited view while a PRO key unlocks additional fields. This is good coverage, though it lacks explicit statements about authorization or rate limits.

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 three sentences long with no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value: first sentence defines the core action, second sentence details tier behavior, third sentence provides usage guidance and read-only status.

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 tool has only one parameter (fully described), no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all necessary context: what it does, differences between free and PRO access, and when to use an alternative. It is complete enough for an agent to decide whether to invoke this 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 coverage is 100% with a description for the only parameter 'account'. The tool description reiterates the enum values and their meanings ('elon' = Elon Musk on X, etc.), but this largely duplicates the schema. No additional semantic value is provided beyond what the schema already offers, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states the tool retrieves 'Monte Carlo forecast data for the active tweet-count markets of a tracked account.' The verb 'get' and specific resource 'Monte Carlo forecast data' make the purpose unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'get_trading_signals' by contrasting market analysis vs. buy/sell recommendations.

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?

Explicitly says to use this tool 'for market analysis' and for 'concrete buy/sell recommendations use get_trading_signals instead.' It also mentions tier differences (free vs PRO key), giving clear context for when to expect limited vs. full data.

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