News read for one asset

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses price ($0.09 USDC), payment rail (x402 on Base), settlement rule (only on success), and a 10–180 s latency band the agent must plan around. It also flags the response as untrusted data rather than instructions, a real prompt-injection guard for open-world content — none of which the annotations convey.

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 is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by cost, latency, and safety caveats in dense but non-redundant sentences. The untrusted-data line is boilerplate-ish but load-bearing for an open-world content tool; nothing is padded.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden — and it does, naming headlines, market impact, and framing. Cost, latency, settlement, and trust posture are all covered, leaving nothing an agent needs before invoking it.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with 'One ticker, e.g. BTC' already documented in the schema. The description says 'one asset' but adds no format or normalization detail (case, exchange suffix, index symbols) beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource+scope: a 'live analyst read on the news flow driving one asset' with the output facets named (headlines, market impact, framing). It implies the single-asset boundary that separates it from macro/theme/screener siblings, but never names an adjacent tool like vedetta_feed or vedetta_social to disambiguate on news-adjacent queries.

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?

Usage is implied by 'driving one asset' and the 'descriptive research, not financial advice' framing, which tells the agent the output is commentary rather than a recommendation. There is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance despite ~20 siblings, several of which also surface narrative/social/news signal.

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