tradfi_macro_radar

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact the annotations lack — the $0.008 USDC price — but says nothing about payment/auth mechanics, latency, or snapshot freshness for a live-data call.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the scope and price before the enumerated payload. The long list of indices is long but earns its place as a de facto return-value spec since no output schema exists.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned data points, and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. The only gap is the absence of usage/alternative guidance, which is a usage rather than completeness concern.

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 coverage is 100% with a self-explanatory enum (all/tradfi/crypto/defi) and a default documented in the schema. The description does not mention the focus parameter at all, so it adds nothing beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a distinct scope (global TradFi, macro, and DeFi capital-flow data) and enumerates the exact data points returned, so an agent can tell it apart from token_alpha or defi_yields at a glance. It is a 'what you get' description rather than a verb+resource statement, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The scope phrasing implies 'use when you need macro market data,' but the agent must infer it, and the sibling list (prediction_markets, defi_yields, whale_alpha_radar) is never referenced.

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