Market Temperature

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds minor behavioral context by specifying the return fields and that it returns 'current' data, implying real-time or near-real-time. However, it does not disclose potential rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness guarantees. This is adequate given the annotations' richness.

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 a single sentence followed by a brief listing of return fields and parameter values. It is concise and front-loaded with the purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured, e.g., bullet points for return fields, but it wastes no 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?

The tool is simple with one parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema (as per context). The description covers the return structure and parameter options. It does not mention prerequisites or limitations, but given the simplicity and availability of output schema, it is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to use correctly.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single 'market' parameter. The tool description also lists the market codes (HK/US/CN/SG), but this does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get current market sentiment temperature.' It specifies the return structure (temperature, description, valuation, sentiment, timestamp) and the market parameter with allowed values (HK/US/CN/SG). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'history_market_temperature' which likely provides historical data.

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?

The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among many sibling tools, there is no mention of when to prefer this over other sentiment-related tools like 'anomaly' or 'industry_valuation'. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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