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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it discloses free-tier truncation and how `truncated`/`available_points` signal it, guarantees no interpolation to fit a window, describes the `more` field and paid x402 route, and names the data_contract block and disclaimer carried on every answer.

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?

Purpose and ordering are front-loaded in the first sentence, and with no output schema the enumeration of returned fields earns its place. The long inline field list is dense and the bulk-CSV point is made twice (via data_contract.bulk_url and the closing sentence), costing some tightness.

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 read-only history tool with no output schema, it covers return shape, point semantics (0-100 strength, direction enum), truncation behavior, upgrade paths, and provenance fields — everything an agent needs to call and interpret it 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 coverage is 100%, so `days` (1-90) and the `signal_type` enum are already fully documented in the schema. The description restates the enum members and gives an example call, which is mildly helpful but adds little semantic meaning beyond the schema — baseline 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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Dated strength history for one CoinBucha signal, newest first.' It clearly carves out a different role from siblings like get_network_signal or scan_signals, which are point-in-time or scanning tools, and it names the required signal_type enum up front.

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 explains the bounded-question model and routes heavier needs ('bulk, history, backfills and scheduled pulls') to the CSVs/datapackage.json, and tells callers the paid x402 route exists for full series. It never explicitly contrasts with the sibling snapshot tools, so the selection guidance is strong but not fully exhaustive.

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