get_pulse_narratives

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the cost ($0.01 USDC via x402) and the output fields, but does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get'), nor does it mention rate limits, pagination, or authentication requirements. While safe, it leaves some behavioral aspects implicit due to lack of 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 concise, two sentences long, and front-loads the core purpose ('Get all active Pulse narratives') before providing supporting details on what narratives are and the cost. Every sentence adds relevant information without redundancy or fluff.

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 tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key information an agent needs: what it returns (all active narratives with specific fields), the definition of a narrative, and the cost. It does not mention pagination or response format, but for a simple get-all tool, this is largely complete. The sibling detail tool is not referenced, which could be useful, but the purpose is clear enough.

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 parameter semantics are trivially satisfied; the baseline is 4. The description adds context about narratives themselves, which helps an agent understand the domain, but since there are no parameters to explain, it appropriately focuses on tool behavior rather than parameters.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Get all active Pulse narratives' with specific data fields (lifecycle stage, source count, momentum). It also defines what a narrative is (stories across 2+ sources) and lists sources, distinguishing this from the sibling get_pulse_narrative_detail tool which focuses on a single narrative.

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 context about the tool's function but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. While the name and purpose imply it is for listing narratives, there is no mention of when not to use it or when to prefer sibling tools like get_pulse_narrative_detail. Usage guidance is implied but not explicit.

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