suverse_market_pulse

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It thoroughly discloses the $0.10 USDC cost, the requirement for payment_signature to get the full response, the 402 behavior without payment, and the beta status of Base coverage. This is strong behavioral transparency.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and packed with useful details, but it is a long paragraph that could be broken into clearer sections. Every sentence earns its place, though the structure is somewhat dense.

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?

With no output schema, the description does a good job explaining the return values: verdict enum, summary, confidence, signals, and raw data. It covers payment behavior and data coverage caveats, making it sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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 schema already documents payment_signature at 100% coverage, providing the baseline of 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining what happens when payment_signature is omitted, the forwarding behavior, and that the server never signs payments.

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 states the tool answers what crypto market regime is occurring, with specific outputs (verdict enum, summary, confidence) and data sources. It is distinct from all sibling tools, which focus on freight, government, and wallet utilities.

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?

It provides clear context on when to use the tool: to determine market regime and smart money accumulation/distribution. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no direct sibling overlaps exist, and the payment flow is clearly described.

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