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

Annotations already establish read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it explicitly labels the data as observational and disclaims financial advice, and details the return structure (top-level keys and per-signal fields). This goes beyond what annotations convey.

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 and well-structured: purpose, return schema, filter options, an example, and a caveat are all presented in three dense sentences with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Despite the lack of an output schema, the description thoroughly enumerates the response fields and per-signal attributes, explains the optional filters, and provides an example. This is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description enhances this by providing a concrete invocation example and clarifying that an empty object yields the full ranked list, which aids real-world usage beyond the schema's static 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 clearly states the tool as a 'Ranked cross-signal feed of CoinBucha's leading, non-price Bitcoin indicators.' This specific verb-resource pair distinguishes it from sibling tools that target individual data streams such as ETF flows or network signals.

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 implies use for a cross-signal overview and provides filter examples, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling getters. No exclusions or alternative-tool references are given, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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