get_macro

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not specify whether the tool returns historical data, requires authentication, or has rate limits. It also doesn't describe the output schema, though an output schema exists. The description is a factual list of contents, which is standard, but it lacks depth.

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 concise, a single sentence that lists the key data categories. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool, and the main regime concept is highlighted first. However, it could be slightly more structured to separate the headline regime from the supporting data.

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 that there is an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. However, for a zero-parameter tool, the description is fairly complete in listing the data areas. The main gap is the lack of behavioral context (e.g., is this a snapshot? current or historical?), which limits full completeness.

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 there is no parameter semantics to explain. The description covers the broad categories of data returned, but since there are no parameters, the lack of specific param info is not an issue. Baseline 4 is appropriate because the description adds context about what data is included.

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 macro regime data (risk_on/neutral/risk_off) along with rates, inflation, yield curve, and positioning. This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like get_stage or get_sector_breadth, which focus on other aspects.

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 implies when to use this tool (when macro regime data is needed), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Given the sibling tools, no direct comparison is made, so the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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