get_intelligence_digest

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the update frequency (hourly), rate limit, and authentication requirements, and describes the content structure (executive summary, cross-domain insights, narratives, sentiment). This exceeds basic expectations, though it does not detail error handling or output format beyond the description.

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 sentence, but it is dense and front-loaded with the specific verb and resource. It packs multiple details (sources, content, update frequency, rate limit, auth) without redundant phrasing. Slightly long but efficient.

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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers all essential aspects: what it returns, how often it updates, and access constraints. An agent can call it correctly with no ambiguity. It lacks only minor details like response format or pagination, but these are not required for a digest tool.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema carries no burden. The description adds value by explaining what the tool returns, which is the only parameter-like context needed. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool, and the description is informative.

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 retrieves the 'latest Master Intelligence Digest' and specifies that it is a cross-domain synthesis combining multiple sources (crypto sentiment, GitHub trends, Polymarket signals, token intelligence) into a unified analysis. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_github_digest or get_polymarket_latest, which focus on single domains.

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 provides practical usage constraints (free, rate limited to 1 request per 5 minutes, no payment or API key required) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the individual domain digests. It implies it is the aggregate option, but an agent might need more explicit routing guidance given the many sibling tools.

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