predict_full_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does add useful context by revealing the cost ($0.1) and the report's contents. However, it does not mention potential limitations, required authentication, or whether the operation is read-only, which would be valuable given the lack of 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 only two sentences and every word earns its place. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose, cost, and value proposition without unnecessary fluff.

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?

Even though there is no output schema, the description does outline the report's high-level components (direction, target, confidence, analysis). However, it lacks detail about the format, units, or how these components are presented, and it does not help the agent understand how this tool differs from many other prediction tools in the sibling list.

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 already describes both parameters (asset and timeframe) with 100% coverage, including enums. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameters, such as accepted formats or examples. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get comprehensive prediction report' and lists the contents (direction, target, confidence, analysis). It clearly explains what the tool does, but it does not mention any sibling tools to distinguish itself from similar prediction tools like predict_direction or predict_crypto_price.

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 phrase 'Best value for complete analysis' implies the tool is for users wanting a full report rather than a simple prediction. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the implied cost.

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