get_visions_info

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains what data is returned and mentions walk-forward validation, but does not disclose if the operation is read-only, any authentication needs, rate limits, or potential side effects. Some behavioral context is lacking.

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 somewhat lengthy but front-loaded with purpose. It contains useful detail without excessive verbosity. Could be slightly more concise, but overall efficient.

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?

Tool has an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. It covers all key aspects: returned data, validation method, subscription info, and canonical source. Complete for an overview 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?

Input schema has zero parameters. Baseline is 4. Description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable since there are none to describe.

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 purpose: 'Get overview of Pythia Visions' and details what it returns (walk-forward validated patterns, accuracy stats, contract address, subscription info, etc.). It distinguishes this overview from sibling tools like get_visions_guide and get_vision_history.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for an overview, but does not state exclusions or when to prefer other tools like get_visions_guide or get_vision_history.

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