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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'live computed signal' and cryptically references 'x402 (USDC on Base),' hinting at payment, but it does not clarify return format, permissions, rate limits, or side effects. The malformed phrase 'Turns raw series into d Price 0.01' undermines transparency.

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 first sentence is front-loaded with useful signal information, but the second sentence appears corrupted and confusing ('Turns raw series into d Price 0.01 via x402'), so it fails to earn its place. The heavy colon usage and 'Finance Signal Bundle' opener add minor redundancy.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify the return shape, which FX instruments are covered, and what the x402 payment mechanism actually means. It lists the signal components but leaves material details ambiguous, making the tool incomplete to invoke correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single optional 'wallet' parameter is adequately described in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but the schema already carries the semantic load, so the baseline 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 first sentence clearly states an action ('get live computed signal') and resource ('Processed analytics layer over FX'), and even enumerates outputs: '30-period percentile rank, 4-period momentum, and a plain-language trend verdict.' However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like processed_fx_rates or processed_fx_hist, and the garbled final sentence adds confusion.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are mentioned. The phrase 'get live computed signal' weakly implies use for processed FX analytics, but the description does not contrast it with raw FX or historical FX siblings.

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