compute_funding_momentum

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals the weighted nature of the calculation and the exact output shape, which is useful. However, it does not explain how weights are applied, what happens when hits are absent, whether recent30dHits affects the score, or any edge-case behavior.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the output, range, badge scheme, and input concept with no wasted words. Every element serves a purpose.

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 description is adequate for recognizing that this computes a momentum score from tiered hit counts, but it is incomplete for confident invocation. It omits the optional recent30dHits parameter, fails to define the tier semantics, and provides no weighting formula. Since there is no output schema, the description also leaves the exact mapping between score and badge unexplained.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the schema's silence. It loosely maps 'tier-weighted funding-article hit counts' to the hitsByTier object, but it does not explain the roles of tier_1, regional, vertical, presswire, or the optional recent30dHits parameter. An agent would not know how to populate the inputs correctly from the description alone.

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 the tool computes a funding_momentum_score on a 0-10 scale plus a HOT/WARM/COOL/COLD badge from tier-weighted funding-article hit counts. It names the resource and output format, making the tool's main purpose unmistakable, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the many sibling compute_* tools.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like compute_urgency_composite or compute_collection_scores. The description implies the input scenario (having tiered funding-article hit counts), but it never states exclusions or preferred situations, leaving an agent to guess among many similar compute tools.

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