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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It does add useful behavioral context by saying the signal is 'live computed' and by mentioning a payment price ('0.05 via x402 USDC on Base'), which warns the agent of a cost. However, the payment clause is poorly worded, and there is no further disclosure about authentication, failure behavior, or how the free-tier wallet param relates to the paid access.

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 dense run-on sentence that mixes useful methodology details with confusing jargon and an apparent typo ('plai Price'). It is not clearly structured or front-loaded, and the ending fragment is hard to parse.

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 tool with no output schema and a complex composite-signal behavior, the description leaves too much unspecified: which indices are in the 13 series, what the returned data looks like, and how free vs paid access actually works. The many sibling tools increase the need for clearer context, which this description does not provide.

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 already fully describes the only parameter (wallet), including the anonymous vs bound-wallet free-credit distinction. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the agent already has from the schema.

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 phrase 'get live computed signal' states a clear verb and resource, and the mention of 'Composite processed layer across 13 series' gives some specificity. However, the description never identifies which 'global indices' are covered, and the garbled ending 'plus a plai Price 0.05 via x402' muddles the purpose. It also does not differentiate this from the sibling signal_global_indices.

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 about when to choose processed_global_indices over alternatives such as signal_global_indices or the many other processed_* tools. There are no stated exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions that would help an agent decide to invoke this tool rather than a sibling.

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