Get social sentiment trend

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the data is daily and spans ~30 days, giving temporal context. It does not describe return format or processing details, but with annotations present, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentences long, with the first sentence front-loading the core definition and time window. The second sentence adds a practical use case. No unnecessary words, and the structure is scannable.

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 simple one-parameter read-only tool, the description provides enough context to select it correctly. It covers purpose, time window, and use case. The lack of an output schema or parameter details is mitigated by the tool's simplicity and the clear differentiation from related tools.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the 'ticker' parameter at all. While 'ticker' is self-explanatory in a financial context, the description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation, leaving the agent to infer its meaning from common knowledge.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: 'Daily social mention-volume and sentiment trend for a ticker over the last ~30 days.' It clearly distinguishes from snapshot tools by saying 'not just the current snapshot,' which differentiates it from siblings like get_social_sentiment.

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 states when to use it: 'Use to see whether attention and bullishness are building or fading, not just the current snapshot.' This provides clear context and implies a comparison to snapshot tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or list exclusions.

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