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

With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already in annotations, the description adds valuable context: signals are logged live when fired and never backfilled, each entry includes the price after, record shows how many rose and median move, and scorecard returns totals only. This goes beyond annotations, though it does not mention rate limits or pagination behavior.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first covers the core data provenance (live, never backfilled, price after), and the second lists the three views with their distinguishing outputs. Every clause earns its place and information is front-loaded.

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 (7 optional parameters, 3 views, paginated detail mode), the description combined with full schema coverage and output schema gives an agent enough to call it correctly. The main missing piece is explicit when-to-use versus siblings, which is already reflected in the usage-guidelines score.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning for the view parameter by explaining each enum value (recent, record, scorecard) in terms of returned data, and implicitly clarifies the roles of type and coin for the record view. Other parameters are adequately described in the 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 exposes signals with their outcomes and enumerates three distinct views (recent, record, scorecard) with their specific outputs. This identifies the resource and operation well, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools for differentiation.

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 gives internal guidance by explaining what each view is for, which helps choose among the view parameter values. However, it does not state when to use this tool instead of related siblings like history or market_now, so cross-tool usage guidance is only implicit.

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