kronos_decision

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a behavioral trait: the tool costs $0.001 USDC via x402. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what data it accesses, whether it has side effects, or what it returns. The cost disclosure alone is insufficient.

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 very short, which is concise, but it is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful. It is a single sentence that combines a vague label with pricing, but no substantive content. This is closer to under-specification than to efficient 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?

The tool is a paid 'Market Intel' tool with an open-ended params object, no output schema, and many similarly named siblings. The description fails to explain its purpose, inputs, outputs, or relationship to other kronos_* tools, making it completely inadequate for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 only has a generic 'params' object with the description 'Tool parameters as JSON object'. This provides no real parameter information. The description adds nothing about what parameters the tool expects, so an AI agent cannot know what to pass. The nominal 100% schema coverage is a tautology and carries no semantic value.

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 says 'Kronos Market Intel tool' which gives a vague category but no specific verb or resource. It does not explain what the tool actually does, and it closely mirrors the tool name 'kronos_decision' without adding meaningful detail. Sibling tools like kronos_signals, kronos_history, and kronos_forecast are not distinguished.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned. The only added information is the cost, which is not usage guidance.

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