Get social source credibility

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds meaningful behavioral detail by explaining the ranking metric (Wilson lower-bound on true directional accuracy), which gives the agent insight into how the leaderboard is computed. It stops short of discussing response format or edge cases, but for a simple read-only tool this is strong.

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?

Two clean sentences, front-loaded with the core output (leaderboard of social sources) and followed by a clear use case. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations, the description fully covers purpose, usage, and expected output (ranked list). There is no output schema, but the description hints at the structure well enough. No gaps remain for the agent to safely invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single 'limit' parameter, which is documented with default and max. The description does not add further parameter details, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting. No additional semantics are needed.

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 a specific action and resource: it returns a 'Leaderboard of social sources ranked by true directional accuracy (Wilson lower-bound on their calls)'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like stoquant_get_social_sentiment or stoquant_get_accuracy_summary, focusing on source credibility rather than raw sentiment or signal accuracy.

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 provides clear usage context: 'Use to judge how much weight to give a platform or author's sentiment'. It implies an alternative (raw mention volume) by contrasting with it, but does not explicitly name a sibling tool or provide exclusion criteria. Still, the guidance is practical and actionable.

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