24h digest for one category

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the cost (~$0.01), the 404 error behavior for unknown categories, and that the response includes the known_categories list. It also implies the tool is read-only. However, it does not describe response format or rate limits, but for a simple lookup it is reasonably transparent.

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 and front-loaded with the cost, followed by the core purpose and error handling. The final 'Param: category' is redundant with the schema but harmless. It's a compact, efficient description with almost no fluff, though the redundant parameter sentence prevents a perfect score.

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?

The description covers purpose, cost, error behavior, and parameter examples, which is solid for a one-parameter tool. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not explain the structure or contents of the 'digest' response. The agent would not know what fields to expect, which is a notable gap.

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 schema only defines category as a string with min/max length (0% coverage). The description compensates by giving concrete examples (politics, economics, sports) and explaining that unknown categories result in a 404 with the list of valid categories. This adds meaningful guidance beyond the raw schema, though it doesn't provide the full valid category list.

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's function: 'The 24h whale digest scoped to one market category' with examples (politics, economics, sports). It distinguishes from siblings like predge_signals_daily (which likely covers all categories) by emphasizing the category scope. The verb 'digest' and resource 'category' are explicit.

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 context: use this when you need a 24-hour digest for a specific market category. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the sibling context implies predge_signals_daily for overall digest. The category scoping is evident, and the error behavior (unknown category -> 404 with known_categories list) guides the agent on usage.

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