News Intelligence

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent), the description discloses that the tool surfaces catalysts price hasn't reflected, involves frequency anomaly, tone shift, sentiment-price misalignment, and FinBERT. This enriches agent understanding of what the tool outputs.

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?

Description is structured with clear mode headings and bullet-like parameter assignments. Each sentence serves a purpose, no redundancy, and front-loads the core function.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the description focuses on inputs and behavior, which is sufficient. It covers all parameters and explains the output signals without needing to detail return structure.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description explains all four parameters: mode with two values, symbol for pulse, min_pulse and limit for alerts, including defaults. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema.

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?

Description clearly states it provides narrative-change signals layered on price, with two distinct modes: 'pulse' for single-symbol and 'alerts' for market-wide anomalies. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like narrative_pulse and narrative_alerts by offering both functionalities in one tool.

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?

Explicitly describes when to use each mode: 'pulse' requires a symbol, 'alerts' uses min_pulse and limit with defaults. It does not mention when not to use this tool versus the specialized siblings, but the context is clear for correct invocation.

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