Market Context

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by warning that 'dip-buying historically loses in extreme fear' and explaining that signal hit-rates depend on regime. This informs the agent about interpretation and risk, which annotations alone do not convey. No contradiction 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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core content, and each sentence adds essential information: what it provides, when to use it, and its limitations. No wasted words.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with a defined output schema, the description fully explains the tool's purpose, content, and interpretation caveats. It covers the context needed for an agent to decide when to invoke it and how to use its output, making it complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for zero-parameter tools. The description's content about the data provided is sufficient.

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 provides live market context (Fear & Greed index, headlines, funding-rate extremes) and explicitly pairs it with chart analysis. It distinguishes itself from news-chasing by noting the purpose is risk management and regime read, not entry signals.

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?

It gives explicit usage guidance: 'Use this before acting on any indicator signal' and clarifies it is not for 'news-chasing entries.' This tells the agent when to use it relative to other analysis tools, even without naming siblings explicitly.

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