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

The description discloses destructive behavior (can open/close positions), auth requirements, cost, rate limit, tier, and return fields. This adds substantial value beyond the annotations (which already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false). No contradiction with 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 contains a repetitive sentence (the purpose is stated twice: once in the opening and again after 'Purpose:'). While information-rich, it could be more concise. The structure is front-loaded with the main verb, but the repetition hurts efficiency.

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 (destructive, billing, auth, rate limits, output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: behavior, auth, cost, limits, guidelines, and return format. The output schema is described in text, and annotations cover destructiveness. No gaps remain.

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 100% coverage, but the description adds meaningful context: symbol accepts any format (BTCUSDT, BTC/USDT, BTC-USDT), side described as 'buy or sell', and __x_payment explained as optional payment proof. This enhances the schema descriptions, which were already present but generic.

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 it is a unified signal ingestion endpoint that normalizes symbols from any exchange format to executable format and routes to execution. It distinguishes from sibling cc.agent_strategy by stating it should be paired with that tool for paper trading before live orders. The verb is specific (normalize and route), and the resource is clear (signal ingestion).

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 provides explicit guidance: use for research/signal context, pair with cc.agent_strategy before any live order, and do not invent fills. It also mentions auth requirements (X-Api-Key) and cost. However, it does not explicitly exclude other siblings like cc.external_signal, so it loses one point for lacking when-not alternatives.

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