generate_report

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a 403 error with x-api-key, a $0.05 cost via x402, the Pro requirement for generating new reports, potential caching when signed in, and the HTTP method POST. These details add meaningful context beyond the input schema.

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 extremely compact, using four short clauses to convey purpose, auth constraints, cost, and method. Every sentence provides distinct value with no repetition or fluff.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, authentication nuances, cost, and caching behavior. It does not detail the structure of the report or trade setup, but this is acceptable given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema.

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 only parameter, symbol, is fully described in the schema as 'Ticker symbol' with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states 'AI report + trade setup,' which clearly indicates the tool produces a report and trade setup. It is distinct from the sibling get_* tools, but the lack of an explicit verb like 'generates' makes it slightly less direct. The name and parameter provide additional clarity.

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 provides important usage context by stating it is not available via x-api-key (403) and suggests using x402 or the website, with Pro required for new reports and cached versions when signed in. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool to alternatives like get_ticker or get_signals, so guidance on when to prefer it is limited.

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