Research ticker catalysts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about what the tool evaluates (evidence, provenance, next checks), which goes beyond the annotations and is consistent with them. No contradictions.

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 one sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it is under-specified relative to the tool's complexity, omitting parameter details and decision context, so it is not appropriately sized for the information an agent needs.

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 five parameters, an enum risk_mode, and no parameter descriptions in either the schema or the description, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the meaning of risk_mode values, how lookback_days affects results, or when to use this tool versus the sibling catalyst_edge_claim_sources. The existence of an output schema helps with return values but not with parameter selection.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the five parameters: ticker, risk_mode (an enum), lookback_days, include_sources, or include_raw_signals. The phrase 'ticker research' implicitly relates to ticker but fails to define the semantics of the other parameters, leaving the agent without necessary guidance.

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 is for ticker research to assess recent evidence, provenance, and next checks, which is a specific action on a specific resource. It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool claim_sources by focusing on assessment rather than source retrieval, though the name's 'score' and 'edge' are not explicitly mentioned.

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 phrase 'Use for ticker research' provides a clear context for when to apply the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it, nor does it reference the alternative sibling tool catalyst_edge_claim_sources, so exclusion and alternative guidance are missing.

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