get_kronos_forecast

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: it returns a calibrated price range, current price, upside probability, and costs $0.05 USDC. This is more transparent than typical, though 'conformally calibrated' is jargon and side effects are not discussed; still, the operation is clearly read-only.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the output components and followed by cost. Every word adds value; perfect conciseness.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description explicitly lists what is returned (range, price, probability). It also mentions cost, which is important for selection. For a simple single-parameter tool, this is fairly complete, though it does not cover error cases or edge conditions.

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 schema has one parameter (symbol) with an enum and default, but no description text (0% coverage). The description only says 'supported symbol', which adds little beyond the enum. Since the parameter is self-explanatory from its name and enum, the schema carries the meaning; the description does not compensate but also doesn't need to.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and precisely identifies the resource ('conformally calibrated 80% price range, current price, and upside probability') for a supported symbol. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like signals, risk, history, or whale flows.

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 implies usage for obtaining forecast metrics (price range and upside probability) and notes a cost, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. The context is clear but no alternatives are named.

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