asset_twits

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses several behavioral traits: result ordering (newest first), output format (`[22-Jul-26 19:27 UTC] message text`), input normalization (exchange prefix discarded, SI1! treated as USDRUB), and the exact relevance mechanism. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or error behavior, but for a read-style retrieval tool, this level of disclosure is solid.

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 three compact sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core purpose and ordering, the second explains relevance and input edge cases, and the third gives the exact output format. There is no redundancy or fluff, making it highly 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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description provides an output format example and clearly defines relevance. The schema covers parameters comprehensively, and the description includes enough behavioral context for correct invocation. It could additionally mention result limits or error conditions, but given the tool's apparent simplicity, the existing description is largely complete.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all three parameters, covering defaults, ranges, and special cases (e.g., ISO-8601 datetime interpretation, SI1! mapping). The tool description does not add significant semantics beyond the schema; it repeats the exchange prefix and SI1! handling but offers no new insights into days or datetime meaning. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Return relevant MarketTwits messages, newest first,' clearly stating the action and resource. It further defines 'relevant' explicitly, which distinguishes the tool's behavior from generic message lookups. The specificity of the relevance definition and output format makes the purpose unambiguous.

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?

There are no sibling tools, so no alternatives are mentioned. However, the description clearly states 'Relevance is defined exclusively by the instrument-to-hashtag links,' which signals when this tool is appropriate (when that specific relevance model is desired) and implies a limitation. It also notes edge cases like exchange prefix handling and SI1! mapping, but does not provide explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance beyond its inherent purpose.

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