sentiment_fear_greed

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true and destructiveHint false. The description adds value by detailing the output structure (composite score, rating, sub-indicators, trend context) and scope (US stock market). No contradictions.

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 a single paragraph that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and output. It front-loads the key action and then enumerates details. Slightly verbose in listing all sub-indicators, but overall concise.

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?

With no output schema, the description comprehensively explains the return values (composite score, rating, sub-indicators, trend scores) and usage context. The tool has no parameters, and the description covers all necessary information.

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 has 0 parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description need not add parameter details.

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 the tool retrieves the CNN Fear & Greed Index for the US stock market, specifying the composite score range, rating categories, 7 sub-indicators, and trend scores. It distinguishes effectively from sibling tools like sentiment_crypto_fear_greed.

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 explicitly suggests using this tool to gauge overall market sentiment before analyzing individual stocks, providing clear context. While it doesn't explicitly list alternatives, the sibling tool list includes crypto-specific sentiment, so guidance is sufficient.

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