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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the signal is live, computed, multi-source, non-single-source, priced at 0.05 via x402, and includes a composite score plus group rankings. This is strong behavioral context, though it does not detail exact output fields or failure/payment edge cases.

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 dense but not bloated, front-loading the core purpose and then adding scope, output, source characteristics, and price. The mixed-language structure is a little packed, but every clause contributes useful information.

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 no-output-schema, no-annotations tool, the description covers the main operational facts: what is returned (composite score + rankings), coverage scope, multi-source nature, and cost. It does not enumerate exact output fields or explain how group rankings are formatted, but it gives enough context for correct selection and invocation.

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?

There is only one optional parameter, and the schema description already covers it thoroughly: the wallet address, X-Wallet free tier, and credit limits. The tool description does not need to compensate because schema coverage is 100%. The pricing mention adds context but does not explain the parameter further.

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 defines a specific verb and resource: 'get live computed signal' for a multi-asset composite spanning crypto, stocks, macro/trade, commodities/energy, and FX. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from single-source sibling tools with '多源复合派生，非单源' and by describing a composite 0-100 reading plus rankings.

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 usage context is implied: this is the broad cross-asset composite signal tool, so it should be selected when an agent needs a holistic multi-asset overview rather than a single-asset or single-metric reading. However, it never explicitly says when not to use it or names alternative sibling tools, leaving routing mostly to inference.

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