show_regime

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

Without annotations, the description fully discloses the tool's behavior: it uses 5 named signals, explains the classification logic, and states that it returns a full signal breakdown. It also includes a disclaimer that it is not advice, adding important context.

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 concise (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, signal details, classification rule, and a disclaimer. No superfluous text.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns (full signal breakdown) and how it is derived. With zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers all necessary information for 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?

The input schema has no parameters, and the description provides complete context about what the tool outputs (regime bias and signal breakdown) without needing parameter explanations. The description adds meaning beyond the empty schema.

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's purpose: showing macro regime bias (risk-on, mixed, risk-off) derived from 5 specific FRED-based binary signals. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'show_*' tools by specifying its unique focus on macro regime and signal composition.

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 explains how the tool works: the source signals, thresholds for classification (≥70% bullish -> risk-on, ≤40% -> risk-off, otherwise mixed), and a disclaimer not to present as advice. While it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like show_macro or show_risk, the details are sufficient for an agent to understand when to invoke it.

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