measure_carry_panel_dependence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses a key side effect: it temporarily switches the requested chart per pair, loads only the requested history, and restores the chart after every pair. It also clarifies it does not run other carry studies, giving good behavioral boundaries, though it does not describe return format or failure behavior.

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 front-loaded: purpose first, side-effect behavior second, and scope exclusion third. Every sentence adds distinct information with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

Despite a clear purpose, the absence of an output schema and any parameter-level guidance leaves an agent without enough to confidently invoke the tool correctly or interpret its results. The behavioral side-effect note helps, but the 8-parameter, 0%-coverage schema demands more completion.

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%, so the description must compensate for 8 parameters, but it does not explain seed, iterations, block_length_anchors, horizon_business_days, count, confirm, or pairs beyond indirect references. It only loosely connects 'block-bootstrap design effect' and 'each pair' to the respective parameters, which is insufficient for 0% coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: measure actual pairwise return correlation and block-bootstrap design effect for a fixed daily FX panel before a carry primary test. It also explicitly distinguishes the scope by saying it does not invent policy-rate vintages or run a carry-return study, separating it from related carry-research siblings.

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 gives a clear context ('before a carry primary test') and states exclusions: it measures price-panel dependence only, not policy-rate vintages or carry-return studies. However, it never names an alternative tool or says 'use X instead', so the routing guidance is strong but not explicit.

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