calculate_correlation

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a cost ($0.001 USDC via x402), which is a useful constraint, but it omits any other behavioral traits such as input processing, side effects, or output format, leaving substantial gaps.

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 short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It omits critical information, and the two pieces of information it provides (category and cost) are not enough to make the description useful. A concise description should still convey essential operational details.

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 has a generic parameter container, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain what inputs to provide, how the result is returned, or any limitations. This is severely incomplete for a tool that presumably requires statistical data inputs and produces a correlation coefficient.

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?

Although the schema has 100% coverage for its single 'params' property, that property is a generic object with no inner details. The description adds only the broad category 'Finance & Math', offering no insight into what keys, data types, or formats should be placed inside the object, so it fails to compensate for the lack of structural detail.

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 merely restates the tool name ('calculate correlation') with no additional detail about scope or specific functionality. Adding 'Finance & Math tool' provides a category but does not clarify what inputs or statistical methods are involved, making it essentially a tautology.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context for selecting it over the many sibling math/finance tools. The cost note is a pricing detail, not a usage guideline.

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