get_direction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It indicates the tool combines multiple signals into a single directional view, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, authentication needs, or what happens with a null date.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences in the first paragraph and a list of products and signal types. Every sentence is informative with no waste.

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?

While the description explains the tool's purpose and inputs, it does not describe the return format or data type (e.g., a numeric score, a categorical label). Given the complexity of a 17-component aggregate, this omission leaves the agent uncertain about what to expect.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists acceptable values for 'product' (ES, NQ, etc.), adding value beyond the schema. However, it does not explain the 'date' parameter, leaving its behavior ambiguous.

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 returns a directional bias from a 17-component aggregate, listing specific products and signal types. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_signals which provide individual signals or get_regime which provides market regime.

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 implies usage for a consolidated directional view but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_signals or get_regime. No exclusions or context about prerequisites are provided.

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