fx-signal

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: snapshot-based (refreshed from FxAI scan engine), informational only, output details (zone, score), payment model ($0.01 per call, trial, x402 on X Layer), and that the first paid call opens a 6-day trial. No side effects or destructive actions implied.

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 relatively long but each sentence adds essential information (pair details, output, snapshot, payment, comparison to sibling). It is front-loaded with the core verdict and pair scope, making it efficient despite verbosity. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but overall well-structured.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a comprehensive picture: it explains the output format (zone, score), data freshness (snapshot), payment model (cost, trial, payment method), and how to proceed with payment (402 header). It also references the sibling 'pitch' tool for a free alternative, leaving no obvious gaps.

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 single parameter 'symbol' has a schema description, but the description adds valuable context: acceptable forms (EUR, EURUSD, EURUSD=X), the scope of 47 pairs (24 vs USD, 23 vs KRW), and that it accepts shorthands. This goes beyond the schema's basic type and description.

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 it returns a bottom/top verdict for one currency pair, lists the 47 pairs in the snapshot, explains acceptable symbol formats, and describes the output fields (zone, score). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'pitch' tool by covering any symbol and providing a per-indicator breakdown.

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 description explicitly contrasts this tool with the free 'pitch' tool, noting that 'pitch' only shows a live verdict for the showcase symbol while this tool answers any symbol and adds the breakdown. It also includes payment prerequisites and how to handle the 402 challenge, providing clear when-to-use and alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool is free, has no payment upfront, and describes the funnel sequence. However, it does not detail side effects like state changes or what occurs after 'subscribe'.

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?

Extremely concise—two sentences that front-load the key instruction 'START HERE'. Uses visual cues like arrows for the phase sequence. Every element is purposeful.

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 no output schema and few annotations, the description adequately covers the funnel flow, parameter usage, and tool invocation context. It does not detail return values, but that is acceptable for a stateful interaction tool.

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?

Adds significant meaning beyond the schema: explains the phases enum sequence, clarifies that symbol is only used for 'sample' phase and that other symbols trigger evaluate_symbol, and explains the role of interest (false bows out). This compensates well for the 33% schema coverage.

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 explicitly states 'START HERE — your first call to this agent MUST be pitch', clearly identifying the tool as the entry point. It also outlines the subscription funnel, distinguishing it from sibling tools like evaluate_symbol or scan_bottoms.

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?

Provides explicit instructions: 'your first call... MUST be pitch' and 'Pass interest:false to bow out'. It also enumerates the phases in order, giving clear guidance on progression and exit.

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

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 tool is free and no payment is needed, which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not specify whether the tool is destructive or its side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a feedback tool that likely writes data, more detail would be beneficial.

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 sentence that front-loads 'FREE feedback tool' and quickly conveys the purpose, timing, and what inputs are expected. Every part earns its place, and there is no unnecessary 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?

Given the low complexity (3 simple parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the essentials: purpose, timing, free nature, and parameter hints. It is mostly complete but could mention what the tool returns (e.g., confirmation) and any prerequisites like having a trade to rate. Still, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage. The description adds that score should be 1-10 (range) and mentions pros and cons, which aligns with the parameters. However, it does not clarify that score is required or provide format expectations for pros/cons. It adds partial value but not comprehensive enough to fully compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 it's a FREE feedback tool for leaving a rating (score 1-10 plus pros and cons) after trading on signals. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like evaluate_symbol, scan_bottoms, etc., which are for different purposes.

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 description provides clear usage context: 'after trading on our signals'. It implicitly tells when to use (after trading) but does not explicitly exclude other uses or mention alternatives. The context is clear enough to guide an agent.

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

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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses payment model (x402, $0.01, 6-day trial), retry header, and that no account is needed. Also clarifies ranking behavior. No destructive behavior implied.

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?

Each sentence adds value: purpose, payment details, cold start advantage, relation to pitch. Front-loaded with main action. Slightly long but not rambling.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, payment, and relationship to sibling tools. No obvious gaps.

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?

Only one parameter (limit) with 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no new info beyond the schema's description, which already explains default and max. Hence baseline score of 3.

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?

Clearly states it scans FX snapshot for currency pairs at a bottom (strongest buy), ranked most-bottom first. Specifies the universe: 47 pairs (24 vs USD + 23 vs KRW). Differentiates from sibling 'scan_tops' which likely does the opposite.

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?

Provides clear usage context: best cold start tool, no need to pick a symbol, and mentions the free 'pitch' tool as a complementary tool to know how many are at a bottom. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but context is sufficient.

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

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 the payment requirement ($0.01 per call, trial, no account), the need for a PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header on 402 challenge, and the retry behavior. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or idempotent, though it is implied by 'scan'. Slightly more detail on safety could elevate to 5.

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 four sentences, front-loading the purpose, then payment, then cold-start advice, then an alternative. Every sentence adds value, though some might consider it slightly verbose for the amount of information. Overall efficient and well-structured.

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 the tool's complexity (paid, paywall protocol), the description covers the key aspects: what it does, how to pay (including trial), how to handle 402, and the best use case. No output schema is present, but the description implies a ranked list. A minor gap is not specifying the output format (e.g., symbol names), but it is sufficient for an agent.

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 coverage is 100% (only one parameter, `limit`, with description 'How many to return (default 5, max 47)'). The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema—it mentions 'most-top first' but that is ordering, not parameter-specific. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds little beyond 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 description clearly states the tool scans the FX snapshot for currency pairs at a top (sell), ranked most-top first. It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning the free `pitch` tool tells how many tops exist, while `scan_tops` names them. The verb 'scan' and resource 'FX snapshot' are specific, and the outcome is unambiguous.

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 description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'BEST COLD START: you do not need to pick a symbol — this ranks the whole universe for you.' It also contrasts with the `pitch` tool for counts and implies alternative tools for specific symbols (`evaluate_symbol`) or bottoms (`scan_bottoms`). The payment model and trial are clearly explained.

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