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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/open-world, and the description adds genuinely new context: results are hypothetical paper outcomes, two venues are excluded, the record is hash-chained, and there is a licensing/attribution obligation. It does not disclose pagination, ordering, or response shape, which keeps it from a 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?

One front-loaded sentence leads with the usage condition, followed by short clauses for scope, cost, and licensing. The license/attribution tail is boilerplate but is an actual compliance constraint, so it earns its place.

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 two-parameter, zero-required read tool with annotations present and no output schema, the description covers data provenance, exclusions, cost, and licensing. The remaining gap is that with no output schema it never sketches what a ledger entry contains beyond 'percent outcomes'.

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% (bot enum with all seven ids, limit 1-500 default 200), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds only indirect value by noting Kalshi/Polymarket bots are out of scope, which reinforces the enum's boundaries without explaining filtering or limit behavior.

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 names a specific resource — an auditable, hash-chained track record of cev-os paper-bot signals with percent outcomes — which is clearly distinguishable from all twelve siblings (macro, sentiment, catalysts, etc.). The retrieval verb is only implied by 'Use this when you need', so it stops short of the explicit verb+resource pairing a 5 requires.

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?

It gives a trigger condition ('use this when you need an auditable... track record') and a data-scope exclusion (Kalshi and Polymarket bots excluded), but it never names an alternative tool or states when not to call it. With twelve sibling get_* tools, an agent gets no routing help beyond the resource name.

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