agent_market_sentiment

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

No annotations provided; description includes a read hint '[L:READ]' but does not disclose behavioral traits like permissions, rate limits, or side effects. It adds context about combining multiple data sources but lacks depth on what happens during execution or output handling.

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?

Description is very concise, using a single line with structured formatting. It front-loads the core purpose and modes. However, abbreviations (PCR, CAT, L:READ) and brackets may be cryptic for some agents, slightly reducing clarity.

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?

No output schema; description mentions outputs like 'direction score' and 'funding arbitrage opportunities' but does not detail their format or structure. For a tool with 5 parameters and two modes, the description is adequate but could be more complete regarding return values.

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%, so baseline is 3. Description groups parameters by mode (sentiment vs funding) but does not add significant extra meaning beyond schema descriptions. The two modes are mentioned, but parameter-specific guidance is minimal.

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?

Description clearly states a specific verb-resource combination: market sentiment comprehensive analysis using multiple indicators (long-short ratio, PCR, funding rate, whale sentiment) to produce a direction score or scan funding rate arbitrage. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like agent_market_scan and agent_option_scanner by focusing on sentiment indicators and funding arbitrage.

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?

Description implies usage for sentiment analysis or funding arbitrage scanning but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. The two modes (sentiment and funding) are clear, but no exclusions or recommendations are given.

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