ldbd_get_base_rates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the operation is public, needs no API key, and returns data only, not predictions. It also describes the `basis` field semantics. It doesn't explicitly say 'read-only' but 'data only' and 'Get' imply no side effects, which is sufficient for a simple data-retrieval tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then efficiently elaborates with dashes. Every clause adds meaningful context (timeframes, sample size, basis, auth, data-only). No wasted words.

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?

Even without an output schema or annotations, the description fully explains what the tool returns (frequency, sample size, basis values) and its public accessibility. For a single-parameter, simple read-only tool, this is complete.

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 coverage is 100% for the single symbol parameter, which already includes an example. The description doesn't add additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with a clear verb+object: 'Get an asset's historical up-move frequency per timeframe', and then specifies timeframes, return fields, and the distinction from direction/signal tools. It fully distinguishes this from siblings like ldbd_get_chart_indicators or ldbd_get_macro_indicators.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (when you need reference-class base rates) and when not to use ('no direction call or signal language'). Also notes it's public and needs no API key, which helps the agent decide vs. other tools.

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