Market sentiment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real behavioral context by identifying the data source (the exchange's own 24h tape, not an external feed) and an explicit caveat that the value is display-only and unsuitable as a risk input. It does not mention refresh cadence or snapshot staleness, which would have pushed this to a 5.

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 tight sentences with zero filler: the first front-loads what the index is, its range, its derivation, and its components; the second delivers the critical usage caveat. Nothing is redundant or buried.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies nearly everything needed to call and interpret the tool. The only gap is the return shape — whether callers get a bare score or an object including the named momentum/breadth/volatility components — which is left ambiguous.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate at the parameter level; baseline 4 applies. The description's scale note (0–100) usefully pre-frames how to interpret the parameterless result.

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?

States a specific resource (Strike's Fear & Greed index) with its exact scale (0 extreme fear to 100 extreme greed), source (the exchange's own 24h tape), and sub-components (momentum/breadth/volatility). This clearly separates it from sibling market-data tools like strike_market_snapshot or strike_get_orderbook, which return prices/depth rather than a derived sentiment score.

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 phrase 'Display-only, not a risk input' gives a meaningful when-not-to-use boundary for risk/position-sizing decisions. However, it never names an alternative tool or states the positive condition that selects this one (e.g., 'use when gauging crowd positioning vs. strike_market_snapshot for current prices'), so the routing guidance is only implied.

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