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

With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already covering the safety profile, the description still adds real value: return fields (severity, price change, CVD, English detail), result ordering, and an honest warning that thresholds are uncalibrated. That calibration caveat is exactly the kind of qualifier annotations can't express.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, and the caveat placed last where it belongs. The signal-type enumeration is dense but each item is informative; minor verbosity in listing six types.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by specifying the fields each signal carries and their ordering. Combined with complete parameter documentation, an agent has what it needs to call and interpret the tool; only the absence of volume/size expectations holds it back.

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% and all three parameters (hours, limit, symbol) are fully documented in the schema, so the description carries no additional parameter burden. It adds no semantics beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline at full 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?

States a concrete resource (recent order-flow signals on Binance futures), an ordering guarantee (newest first), and enumerates the signal types so an agent can tell this apart from get_liquidation_levels or get_order_book_walls. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use instead, so not a 5.

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 closing caveat ('treat a signal as context rather than a call') gives interpretive guidance on how to use the output, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use framing and no named alternative among get_pumps, get_verdict, or get_order_book_walls. Usage is implied by the signal-type list rather than stated.

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