Market regime

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is known to be safe. The description adds that it returns regime signals and history, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like data freshness, rate limits, or what happens if both parameters are set. The description is consistent with annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loading the main purpose. It is concise with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating parameter descriptions, but overall it is efficient.

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 has a simple interface with 2 parameters and an output schema exists, so description need not detail return values. However, it lacks explanation of what 'regime signals' are conceptually, which may leave the agent without full context. The description covers parameter usage adequately but omits higher-level context.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by elaborating on the view enum values: 'active (current positions), signals (all), confidence (scores).' This clarifies the meaning beyond parameter names and schema descriptions. The symbol parameter description largely repeats the schema.

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 the tool returns market regime signals and explains the view parameter options. It also notes that providing a symbol returns regime history. The purpose is specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like get_signal or get_market_health, though it does not explicitly differentiate.

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 guidance on using the view parameter and the symbol parameter, but it does not explain when to use this tool over alternatives such as get_signal or get_market_health. No when-not or contextual exclusions are given.

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