astro_basket

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and idempotency profile is fully covered. The description adds only that the read returns a fixed ten-asset set with a freshness indicator, which is modest extra context about staleness but nothing about rate limits, auth, or failure modes.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, though the comma-separated noun list is somewhat flat and would benefit from grouping the data categories more clearly.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it partially does by listing the data categories. However, terms like 'strategy assessments' and 'freshness' are undefined, and the fixed 'ten-asset' scope is never explained, leaving the agent with an incomplete picture of the response.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is no parameter surface the description needs to explain. The description does not need to add syntax details since none exist.

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 enumerates what the tool reads (ten-asset rankings, funding, volatility, strategy assessments, freshness), which is more informative than the opaque name 'astro_basket'. However, it is a noun dump with no clear verb-resource framing and no differentiation from siblings like astro_signal or astro_context, so an agent cannot tell when this basket view is the right one.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling tools (astro_get_started, astro_signal, astro_context) that could serve as alternatives. The agent must infer usage purely from the data categories listed.

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