Cross-asset divergence screener

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

Adds significant behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it is cached, instant, never fires the live desk, costs money, and the response should be treated as untrusted data. The annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint) are not contradicted; the description enriches them with practical context about safety, cost, and data sourcing.

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 tight and front-loaded: first sentence states purpose, second covers cost and alternative, third gives usage and safety advice. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, cost, usage, safety, and the nature of the output. It is complete enough for an AI agent to decide when and how to invoke it, and what to expect in the response.

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 single parameter 'only' is covered in the schema (100%), and the description adds meaning by specifying that the filter 'divergent' returns only currently-divergent assets, which clarifies the effect of the filter beyond the schema's vague 'Filter' text. This is a modest addition, so a score of 4 is warranted.

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?

Description clearly states a cached cross-asset scan that surfaces sentiment-price divergences, answering a specific question ('which asset should I look at first?'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing it is cached, instant, and never fires the live desk, making its role as a screening tool distinct.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: it is a good entry point before paying $0.09 for a live read on the flagged asset, and notes the cost of $0.03. This implies an alternative (presumably a live-read tool among the siblings) and a clear when-to-use, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it.

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