market_radar

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds behavioral specifics: computes regime signals, flags |z-score|>2 moves as content opportunities, and details return fields (current levels, changes, z-scores). This goes beyond the annotations to explain what the tool does with the data.

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 richly informative but well-structured, with a front-loaded headline ('Bloomberg-terminal-grade'), a comprehensive list of covered domains, and a clear closing usage directive. No sentence is wasted.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description fully covers purpose, expected outputs, and usage intent. It explains the breadth of indicators, the computed signals, and the flagging behavior, making it complete without needing to describe return formats.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the baseline for no parameters is 4. The description needs no parameter documentation, and its explanation of outputs is sufficient.

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 identifies the tool's function with the verb 'Get' and a specific resource: 'a Bloomberg-terminal-grade market briefing.' It enumerates coverage (equities, rates, credit, FX, etc.) and computed signals, making it distinct from portfolio and feature management siblings.

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 explicitly states 'Use this to understand the current market environment and decide what Sablier analyses to run,' providing clear context for when to invoke it. It does not name alternative tools for specific contrasts, but its purpose is singular and well-defined, so the guidance is sufficient.

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