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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does add value by revealing a live computed nature and the USDC-on-Base price of 0.01 via x402, which is an important cost behavior. However, it does not explain credit consumption, response format, or any prerequisites beyond the optional wallet.

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 compact at roughly two sentences and front-loads the main purpose before the pricing detail. It loses a point for awkward punctuation and the unclear "T Price" phrasing, which could confuse an agent.

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?

The description covers the signal components and pricing, and no required parameters make invocation straightforward. However, it omits the geographic focus implied by the tool name and gives no basis for choosing this over sibling macroeconomic or signal tools, which weakens overall completeness.

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 one optional wallet parameter and the input schema already describes it thoroughly, including the free-tier credit distinction. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3; the description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, which is acceptable here.

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 the operation — "get live computed signal" — and names three concrete analytics components (30-period percentile rank, 4-period momentum, plain-language trend verdict). However, it never mentions "Singapore" even though the tool is named processed_singapore_econ, and "macroeconomic indicators" is too broad to distinguish this from many processed_* and signal_* siblings.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among dozens of similarly named processed_* and signal_* tools, the description gives no selection criteria, exclusions, or context such as "use for Singapore-specific macro signals".

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