SimpleFunctions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and successfully discloses key behavioral traits: read-only nature, no authentication required, and zero parameters. Mentions return content (rationale and target contract) but could elaborate slightly on output structure or cardinality.

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?

Two sentences total, with zero waste. First sentence defines the resource and content; second provides usage guidance and sibling differentiation. Information is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 parameter-less read-only tool, the description adequately covers purpose, safety constraints, authentication, and usage context. Minor gap in detailed return value specification (output schema absent), though 'rationale and target contract' provides conceptual coverage.

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?

Zero parameters present with 100% schema coverage (trivially). The description explicitly confirms 'no parameters,' aligning perfectly with the empty schema without introducing confusion or phantom parameters.

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 defines the resource (AI-generated trade ideas) and their origin (active theses and market data), including specific content details (rationale and target contract). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tool get_edges by contrasting pre-packaged suggestions with raw mispricings.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('when you want pre-packaged actionable suggestions') and provides a clear alternative ('use get_edges for raw mispricings without commentary'), directly guiding the agent's tool selection between two related options.

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