get_fear_and_greed

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

Although no annotations are provided, the tool name 'get_fear_and_greed' and the description ('returns the index') make it evident that this is a read-only retrieval operation with no side effects. It does not mention any destructive actions, authentication needs, or rate limits, but none are expected for a simple getter.

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 concise but informative, starting with the primary output (current score and rating) and then listing the additional data. It is well-structured and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 gives a complete overview of the returned data, including the seven component indicators and their scores/ratings. While there is no output schema, the description is sufficiently detailed for an agent to know what to expect and how to use the result.

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 covers the parameter completely, and the description adds meaningful detail beyond the schema by specifying 'about a year of daily values' and the default behavior ('Off by default'). This helps the agent understand the impact of setting the parameter.

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 that the tool returns the CNN Fear & Greed index with current score, rating, historical values, and seven component indicators. It is specific and unambiguous, naming the exact resource and the data provided.

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 explains the sole parameter `include_history`, stating that it adds about a year of daily values and is off by default. This gives clear guidance on when to set it, and there are no alternative tools to differentiate from.

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