uw_seasonality

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, which align with the description's 'get' and 'show' language. However, the description claims parameters exist (e.g., month, ticker) while the schema has none, creating confusion about the tool's actual behavior.

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 well-organized with clear bullet points for actions. It is front-loaded with the overall purpose and then details each action. It could be slightly more concise, but the structure is effective.

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 absence of an output schema and the complexity of multiple actions, the description provides reasonable context for each action. However, the empty input schema means the agent cannot correctly invoke the tool, leaving a critical gap in completeness.

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 input schema has zero parameters, yet the description describes required and optional parameters for actions. This adds meaning beyond the schema but is inconsistent and misleading, as the agent cannot use these parameters based on the schema definition.

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 clearly states the tool accesses UnusualWhales seasonality data and lists four distinct actions (market, performers, monthly, year_month). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like uw_alerts and uw_flow by focusing on seasonality patterns.

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 explicit details for each action, including required parameters (e.g., month for performers) and optional filters. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus others, and the mismatch with the empty input schema undermines usability.

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