Get social momentum surges

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the exact surge threshold (2x+), the time window (last hour vs prior hour), and the included data (sentiment and a recent post snippet). It does not contradict annotations and provides value beyond them, though it omits details like result count or pagination.

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 succinctly written in two sentences: the first defines the output and features, the second provides the application context. Every phrase adds value, and the most critical information (what the tool returns) is front-loaded. No unnecessary wording or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety), the description adequately explains what the tool does, the signal definition, and how to use it. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning that it returns a list of tickers or any limitations, but it does not leave major gaps for an agent selecting this 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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty properties). According to the rubric, 0 parameters earns a baseline of 4. The description does not need to explain parameters because none exist, and it clearly describes the output semantics instead.

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 specifies exactly what the tool does: returns tickers with a 2x+ surge in social mentions over the last hour versus the prior hour. It clearly defines the resource (social momentum) and the filter criteria, and distinguishes it from siblings by calling it 'the earliest social-momentum signal.' This is a specific verb-plus-resource statement that leaves no ambiguity.

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 gives a clear use case: 'Use to catch breakouts in attention before they are widely noticed.' This provides context for when to apply the tool, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as stoquant_get_social_trend or stoquant_get_trending_social. Since it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool mentions, it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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