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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description goes beyond them by disclosing the access-tier gating (opportunities on a free plan appear 24 hours after firing), pagination direction via before, and a risk disclaimer for launch signals. It stops short of describing rate limits or ordering guarantees.

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 content is relevant and front-loaded, but the first sentence is an over-packed run-on with nested parentheses and em-dashes that is hard to scan. Every clause earns its place, yet the structure undercuts readability.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by explaining the return shape (exact ticks plus realized outcome once scored) and the access field. It is reasonably complete for an unauthenticated list tool, though it omits ordering and response envelope details.

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?

With 75% schema coverage the schema does most of the work, but the description adds real meaning: it explains the kinds enum values through their signal definitions and clarifies 'before' as backward pagination. It adds nothing for 'limit' or 'source' beyond what the schema states.

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 states a clear resource ('the newest signals') and enumerates the categories it returns (net_apr, burst, hot_pool, launch, depeg, tvl_outflow), so an agent knows it retrieves a reverse-chronological feed. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like signal_track_record or backtest_range, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the content (fetch the latest signals, page back with before), and the access rules (live vs delayed_24h on free plans) help set expectations. But there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance relative to the sibling tools.

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