catalyst_edge_score

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, potential side effects, or any constraints like rate limits or source dependencies. The phrase 'assess' suggests analysis but behavior remains unspecified.

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?

A single concise sentence that states the core function with no filler. The action and key result areas are 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?

An output schema exists, so explaining return values is not required. However, the description omits usage guidelines and behavioral safety details, which are important for a tool with a sibling and no annotations. The core purpose is covered, but the contextual guidance is incomplete.

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 has five parameters but the description explains none of them. It does not clarify how 'recent' maps to lookback_days, what risk_mode does, or what include_sources/include_raw_signals control. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 uses the specific verb 'assess' and names the resource ('recent catalyst evidence, provenance, confidence, and next checks') for a ticker, clearly distinguishing this scoring/assessment tool from the sibling tool 'catalyst_edge_claim_sources' which likely retrieves sources.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling, nor any prerequisites or context. It merely implies usage for assessing a ticker's catalysts, leaving the agent to deduce applicability.

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