get_revenue_stress

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses methodology and intent ('weights consistent low-variance cash flows higher than bursty spikes, so reputation cannot be inflated by one lucky payout'), which tells the agent how to interpret the verdicts. However it never states that the operation is read-only/non-mutating, whether the subject must be a registered agent, or any rate/cost constraints beyond '[FREE]'.

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 output payload is front-loaded reasonably, but the '[FREE]' tag and 'invention #3985' branding add little for an agent, and the text is verbose in places. Most importantly the description is truncated mid-sentence ('...agent name or '), which is a structural defect that leaves required information missing.

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 one-parameter read-style computation tool, the return values are described well enough that no output schema is needed. But there are no annotations, the sole parameter is unexplained in the schema, and the description ends abruptly, so an agent is left guessing about the accepted identifier and about whether this is safe/non-mutating.

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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter 'subject' has no type description beyond 'string'. The description attempts to compensate with 'Accepts an AgentWorld agent name or ' but is cut off mid-sentence, leaving the alternative identifier form (presumably an address) undefined. The agent cannot tell whether an unregistered name is valid or what format is expected.

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 a specific verb+resource ('Volatility-Adjusted Revenue Stress-Test') and enumerates what it produces: stability score 0-100, verdict values (STABLE_CASHFLOW, BURST_DEPENDENT, MIXED, NO_SIGNAL), burst dependence, signal-to-noise ratio, and a 90% confidence floor. It also explains the intent (separating stable USDC revenue from gameable spikes), which distinguishes it conceptually from generic profile or trust tools. It stops short of naming any sibling, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the many adjacent credit/underwriting tools (underwrite_agent_loan, get_agent_trust_pulse, solvscore_repgate, get_credit_ladder). The only usage signal is the '[FREE]' tag, which implies cost but not selection criteria. The agent must infer this is a pre-underwriting risk check.

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