kronos_audit

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavior but only mentions the cost and payment mechanism. It doesn't explain what actions an audit performs, whether it is read-only, or what response to expect.

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 text is brief and the cost detail is useful, but the opening 'kronos audit' is redundant with the tool name. It is concise but sacrifices necessary substance.

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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a generic parameter wrapper, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what the audit returns, what inputs it accepts, or how it differs from the many related kronos tools.

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 contains only a generic 'params' object with no defined properties. The description does not list any expected fields, so an agent has no way to construct correct arguments.

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 labels the tool as 'Kronos Market Intel tool' but doesn't state a specific verb or resource. 'Audit' is not defined, and there is no differentiation from sibling kronos_* tools such as kronos_signals or kronos_forecast.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling kronos tools. The only operational info is the cost, which doesn't help with selection.

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