predict_circuit

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It lists the 5 signals and risk levels, but omits time horizon, reliability, data sources, and limitations. The promotional line 'Predicted 4 lower circuits in March' adds no operational 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 compact and organized with signals and risk levels, but the extraneous marketing quote 'Predicted 4 lower circuits in March — here's how' wastes a line and dilutes the structure. Otherwise, it's efficient.

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?

Given the single param and presence of an output schema, the description supplies core inputs and output categories. However, it lacks prediction horizon, practical interpretation of risk levels, and caveats, leaving noticeable gaps for a predictive tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds 'NSE symbol' and a usage hint ('most useful for mid/small caps under stress'), which helps but lacks format examples or validation rules, only partially covering the gaps.

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 specifies a clear verb+resource: 'Predict lower circuit risk for an NSE stock.' It lists five distinct signals and four risk levels, distinguishing it from related siblings like nse_circuit_breakers (actual limits) and detect_unusual_activity.

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 phrase 'most useful for mid/small caps under stress' gives clear context on when to employ the tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it, so it stops short of full 5.

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