show_stress

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It explicitly states 'Pure descriptive, no advice,' indicating it is a read-only informational tool. However, it does not disclose data freshness or update frequency of underlying FRED series.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and immediately detail components and output structure. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The tool is relatively complex (5 series, index calculation), yet the description covers inputs, outputs (score, label, breakdown), and the nature (no advice). Without an output schema, this description is fully adequate.

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 (100% coverage by default). The description adds no parameter-specific info because none exist, but it explains the computation and output fields, which provides context 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 identifies the tool as computing an Economic Stress Index from 5 specific FRED series, returning a total score, label, and per-component breakdown. It includes a statement that it is purely descriptive with no advice, which distinguishes it from any tool that might give 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?

The description explains what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it over sibling tools. While siblings like show_macro or show_risk might be related, there is no guidance on trade-offs or alternatives.

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