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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those hints: results are sorted by live PnL, omitting the API key gives only a 3-signal preview with reduced fields, and a free account returns up to 100 signals with full reasoning and verified outcomes. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 front-loaded paragraph that states the core purpose first and immediately highlights the API-key limitation. The filter list is long but useful. The final 'Star the repo' sentence is promotional and does not assist tool invocation, which prevents a perfect score.

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 complex 22-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the returned signal fields, sort order, and the two access tiers (3-signal preview vs. 100-signal full access). It does not describe the exact response envelope or empty/error behavior, but the schema carries parameter details, so the description is reasonably 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each of the 22 parameters already documented in the schema including ranges, examples, and heuristic notes. The description's filter list is only a high-level summary of categories and does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource: 'Fetch live (active) crypto trading signals with entry, SL, TP, leverage, confidence.' The 'live' qualifier plus plural signals clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_signal and get_signal_history, and the list of returned fields makes the tool's scope concrete.

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 implies usage context through 'Optional research-backed filters let you build your own strategy' and explains the API-key vs. free-preview distinction. However, it never explicitly says when to use get_signals versus get_signal, get_signal_history, or get_stats, and it provides no exclusions or alternative routing.

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