Macro divergence read

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing price ($0.09 USDC via x402 on Base), that settlement only occurs on success, a 10–180 s latency window, and a prompt-injection warning to treat the response as untrusted data. Annotations only cover read-only/idempotency traits, so this operational context is genuinely additive. What is missing is any hint about response shape or failure modes beyond non-settlement.

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?

Purpose and price are front-loaded, and each sentence (cost, latency, disclaimer, trust boundary) carries distinct operational value. Slightly dense with boilerplate-style disclaimers, but nothing is truly redundant.

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?

Covers cost, latency, payment mechanics, and trust handling for a one-parameter read tool with no output schema. The main gap is a hint at what the divergence output contains, though 'descriptive research, not financial advice' implies an analytical payload.

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% and the single `asset` parameter already documents 'One ticker, e.g. BTC'. The description adds only the mild clarification that macro tickers (not just assets) are accepted. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: a sentiment-vs-price divergence read scoped to one asset or macro ticker. That is distinguishable from siblings like vedetta_trend or vedetta_snapshot, but the description never names which sibling to prefer, leaving the boundary implicit.

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 gives context (descriptive research, one ticker) but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and none of the 20 sibling tools are referenced as alternatives. Usage is inferable but not directed.

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