market_pulse_summary

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

The annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that the tool returns one aggregated table containing specific metrics for all requested symbols, which goes beyond what the annotations state. No contradiction.

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 compact and well-structured: one sentence for purpose and use case, followed by a concise Args block. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the schema, and the key aggregation behavior is front-loaded.

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?

For a read-only summary tool with one parameter, an output schema, and sibling tools, the description covers why to call it, what it returns, and how to specify symbols. Minor gaps such as exact ticker formatting rules or behavior for unsupported symbols are non-critical.

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 input schema has no property descriptions, so the 'Args: symbols' documentation carries the burden. It clarifies that symbols are base tickers and provides a concrete list example. It could be more specific about accepted formats or unsupported symbols, but it is sufficient for a single array parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: a compact multi-asset summary table combining price, spread, funding rate, and RSI/trend for each symbol. This clearly differentiates it from the individual market_pulse_* siblings such as price, orderbook, funding_rate, and indicators.

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?

It states a clear use context: a quick market scan, avoiding calls to individual per-asset tools. It does not explicitly enumerate when NOT to use it or name an alternative tool, but the 'without calling individual tools' phrasing establishes the main routing decision.

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