get_market_temperature

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only lists what data is returned (market heat, advance-decline ratios, sentiment indicators) but omits critical traits like data freshness, update frequency, or whether it is real-time or historical. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no redundant words. Every sentence provides clear value, making it highly concise and structured.

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 simplicity of the tool (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the basic return content. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral disclosure, which are needed for complete context. Overall adequate but not thorough.

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% for the single parameter, but the description adds value by explaining the comma-separated format, listing valid market codes (HK, US, CN, SG), and providing an example. This exceeds baseline 3 by offering practical usage details.

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 clearly states that the tool gets market temperature/sentiment overview and lists what it shows (market heat, advance-decline ratios, sentiment indicators). However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like get_market_breadth, which may overlap. A score of 4 reflects good clarity but missed differentiation.

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 only mentions it is useful for gauging bullish/bearish markets but provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., get_market_breadth, get_global_indexes). There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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