get_pulse

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: 'noise-filtered', 'FREE', 'rate-limited 5/min per IP', and 'no wallet or API key required'. It doesn't describe return format or what the digest teaser entails, so not a 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core function, then practical constraints. No wasted words; efficiently 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 no parameters, no output schema, and simple read-only nature, the description is complete: it explains what is returned, the endpoint, rate limit, and auth requirements. An agent can invoke it correctly based on this.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description mentions 'no wallet or API key required' which clarifies auth is not a parameter, and there are no parameter semantics to explain beyond that.

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 returns 'Top-3 Polymarket repricings over 24h (noise-filtered) plus a digest teaser', which is a specific resource and scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_index and get_digest_brief by focusing on repricings and the free hook.

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?

It provides clear practical context: 'FREE, rate-limited 5/min per IP, no wallet or API key required' implies usage for unauthenticated users needing a free sample. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it's short of a 5.

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