evaluate_cross_asset_shock_outcomes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the tool uses exact-time common bars, excludes overlapping state windows, and never produces a candidate or trade instruction, which meaningfully signals its non-execution and non-trade nature. It does not mention possible side effects or output format, but the core behavioral constraints are disclosed.

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 two sentences and every clause earns its place: the outcome horizons, the bar-alignment constraint, the overlap exclusion, and the no-trade caveat. Information is front-loaded and there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

The description explains the high-level behavior but leaves the 8-parameter input surface completely undocumented and provides no return-value or output-shape information. For a research tool of this complexity, especially with no output schema and no annotations, an agent would not have enough context to invoke it correctly without external knowledge.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 8 parameters, including the 4 required ones: target_chart_index, auxiliary_chart_index, expected_target_symbol, and expected_timeframe. The tool name and description imply cross-asset context, but an agent cannot determine parameter meaning or valid combinations from this description.

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 a specific action, 'measure', and a specific resource, 'descriptive 15/30/60/120-minute outcomes for frozen observed cross-asset shock states.' It also differentiates itself from trading/execution tools by saying it 'never produces a candidate or trade instruction,' though it does not explicitly name an alternative sibling.

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 implies use when frozen cross-asset shock states have been identified and descriptive outcome measurement is needed. It provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not reference alternative tools such as classify_cross_asset_shocks or preflight_cross_asset_shock, leaving some routing to inference.

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