digest

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context by detailing the output ('gems ranked by surprise score'), included metrics (Fear & Greed, VIX), and market filtering behavior, which complements the structural hints.

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 comprised of four concise sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose and efficiently adds usage instructions, making it easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool has 2 optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the main functionality well. However, it lacks explanation of the 'limit' parameter, which is a minor gap. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

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 description compensates for 0% schema coverage by explaining the 'market' parameter with examples ('poland', 'crypto', 'us') and default behavior. However, it does not mention the 'limit' parameter, leaving its purpose and default value (20) unexplained, which is a significant gap.

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 explicitly states 'Scan global markets and surface anomalies' and lists specific anomaly types, clearly indicating the tool's purpose. It also distinguishes behavior with and without parameters, making its scope 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?

The description explains how to use the tool (default scans all markets, pass market parameter to focus) but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool over sibling tools like 'scan' or 'movers', nor does it mention when not to use it.

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