predict_direction

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose any important behavioral traits. It only says it gets a simple prediction, omitting details such as whether it is read-only, how the prediction is determined, whether historical data is factored, or if any rate limits or accuracy caveats apply. The lack of behavioral context is a notable gap for an unannotated tool.

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 short sentences, immediately stating the core function and the key selling point. Every part earns its place, and the structure is clean and front-loaded. This is appropriately concise.

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 no output schema and no annotations, leaving the description to fully explain what the agent can expect. It does not describe the return format (e.g., a simple string vs. an object with confidence scores), nor does it clarify any disclaimers or limitations of a 'simple' prediction. Given the minimal description and lack of structured fallback, this is incomplete for an unannotated 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?

The input schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (asset and timeframe), including enums. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already offers, so the baseline of 3 applies. It does not clarify how these parameters affect the prediction output.

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 it returns a simple 'Up/Down/Sideways prediction', which is a specific verb and resource. It also mentions it is the 'Cheapest option at $0.01', helping distinguish it from more expensive sibling prediction tools, though it does not name alternatives explicitly.

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 offers minimal guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While 'Cheapest option' implies a cost consideration, it does not specify when to choose this over predict_btc_price, predict_crypto_price, predict_full_report, or other prediction tools, nor does it state limitations (e.g., no detailed price targets).

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