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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the output is a computed signal and references x402/USDC, which hints at payment behavior, but the sentence is ambiguous ('Turns raw series int Price 0.01 via x402') and does not clarify pricing, auth, rate limits, or side effects.

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 short and starts with the core action, but the second sentence is cryptic and contains a likely typo ('int' instead of 'into' or 'into Price 0.01'). It is compact but not every clause earns its place.

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 there is no output schema, the description does list expected signal components, which helps. However, it fails to clearly explain the data source ('trade'), the payment/pricing flow, or the actual return contract, leaving important context ambiguous for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.

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 already fully documents the single optional wallet parameter, including the free-tier credit details, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which means the baseline score of 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 states a clear action ('get live computed signal') and identifies the resource ('processed analytics layer over trade') plus the concrete output components (30-period percentile rank, 4-period momentum, trend verdict). However, it does not name the 'china' scope explicitly and 'trade' is ambiguous, so it is clear but not fully self-sufficient.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool instead of one of the many processed_* siblings. The phrase 'live computed signal' implies a use case, but there are no exclusions, alternatives, or selection criteria.

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