get_conviction_score

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions factors like trade size, cluster patterns, and C-suite status, which add some context about how the score is calculated. However, it lacks critical details such as whether this is a read-only operation, what the output format looks like, potential rate limits, or error conditions. The description is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary words and directly states what the tool does. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating usage guidelines or behavioral details, but it earns its place as concise and well-focused.

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?

Given the complexity of a scoring tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains the factors considered in the score but doesn't cover the return values, error handling, or operational constraints. For a tool that likely outputs a structured score breakdown, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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, with the single parameter 'trade_id' documented as a UUID. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't clarify format examples or constraints). Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't need to compensate but also adds no extra value.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('conviction score breakdown for a specific trade'), specifying what the tool does. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on conviction scores rather than other data types like trades, correlations, or network info. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_nexus_score (another scoring tool), leaving some ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid trade ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like get_nexus_score or get_insider_profile, which might offer related insights. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description.

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