market_analyze_fear_greed_trend

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (calculating averages and trend direction) but does not mention any limitations, edge cases, or what the output structure looks like. It is not misleading, but lacks additional behavioral context.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and outputs with no filler or redundancy.

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 well-documented parameter. The description explains the main outputs (averages and trend direction) and the context of analyzing a specified period. While there is no output schema, the description provides sufficient clarity for this low-complexity tool.

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 100% with a clear description for 'days' (2-365). The tool description adds the phrase 'over a specified period' which aligns with the parameter but provides no additional semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 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 function: analyzing trends in the Fear & Greed Index over a period, with specific outputs (averages, trend direction). This distinguishes it from siblings like market_get_fear_greed_current and market_get_fear_greed_historical, which simply fetch current or historical values.

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 trend analysis over a specified period but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like market_get_fear_greed_historical. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, so guidance is only implied.

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