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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and handles it well. It discloses the data source (daily candles + digest), the disclaimer ('not advice, not intraday'), the components of each setup (pump %, strength vs BTC, weakness score, etc.), and the free/paid behavior (teaser vs. full list). It could go further by detailing response format or rate limits, but the disclosed context is substantial.

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 single paragraph is information-dense and well-organized: it starts with the core action, explains intents, lists output fields, and closes with access and disclaimers. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repetition. The front-loaded action verb makes the purpose immediately clear.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (two intents, free/paid modes, custom signals) and the lack of an output schema, the description covers most essentials: what the setups include, the data origin, the non-advice disclaimer, and access requirements. It does not specify result limits or ordering criteria, but overall it provides a solid operational picture for an agent.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'intent' parameter with its two options and their meaning, and clarifies that 'session_token' (from verify_wallet_ownership) and 'payment' (x402 proof) are access-unlock parameters. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare defaults in the schema, though it doesn't specify exact formatting for the payment 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 opens with a clear verb+resource: 'Screen for trade setups', then specifies the unique value proposition ('ranked from OUR computed signals (no hallucinated ranking)') and enumerates the intents (fade/momentum) with concrete definitions. This distinguishes it from sibling market tools like find_longs/find_shorts by focusing on computed signals and specific setup types.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use each intent ('fade' for weak coins that pumped, 'momentum' for coins holding strength) and explains the access modes (free teaser vs. paid unlock via session_token or x402 payment). However, it does not explicitly mention exclusions or direct comparisons to sibling tools like find_longs/show_finds, so it lacks an explicit alternatives statement.

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