get_market_risk_regime

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so safety is covered; the description adds real beyond-schema context by naming the data provenance (Crash Shield vs Chainlink oracle peaks on Base) and the exact cost model (free unless MCP_PAYWALL=true, then 0.002 USDC). It omits freshness/caching behavior for a 'current' reading, keeping it below 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the returned values and enums, then provenance, then payment terms — no filler. The paywall sentence is long and slightly dense, but every clause carries operative information.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description only needs to add cost, provenance and access preconditions — and it does all three. An agent can decide to call it and handle the paywall branch without further information.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and _payment is fully documented there, so the baseline is 3; the description earns a bump by explaining the payment condition that motivates the _payment proof parameter. It still doesn't restate the omit-on-first-call 402 handshake, but the schema handles that.

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?

Specific verb+resource with enumerated outputs ('risk regime (calm | elevated | crash)', severity score, posture), which lets an agent predict the return shape precisely. It does not explicitly contrast with the nearest sibling (verify_risk_attestation), so it stops short of a 5.

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 clarifies a prerequisite-style condition ('Independent of holding GBLIN') but never states when to call this versus alternatives such as verify_risk_attestation or how the regime should gate other flows. Usage is implied by the resource name rather than stated.

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