get_market_tide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get market tide data' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify any behavioral traits such as data format, freshness, rate limits, authentication needs, or potential side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 'Get market tide data' is extremely concise—a single phrase with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. This is an example of efficient communication, though it may be overly brief for 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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective tool use. 'Market tide data' is ambiguous without context on what data is returned, its structure, or how it differs from other market tools. For a tool in a complex domain with many siblings, more detail is needed to understand its role and output.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate as the description aligns with the absence of parameters, though it doesn't add semantic value beyond what the schema already indicates (no inputs).

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 'Get market tide data' clearly states the action (get) and resource (market tide data), which provides a basic understanding of purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'market tide data' entails and doesn't distinguish this tool from its many siblings that also retrieve market-related information (e.g., get_market_economic_calendar, get_market_spike). The purpose is vague but not tautological.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling tools for market data (e.g., get_market_economic_calendar, get_market_spike), there's no indication of what makes 'market tide data' unique or when it's appropriate. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context are mentioned.

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