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

Although no annotations exist, the description excels here by detailing practical behavioral traits: it discloses the cost ($0.01 USDC), the performance trade-offs of the timeframe setting (shorter/faster/noisier vs. longer/slower/higher-conviction), and a critical accuracy warning for certain endpoints.

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 dense, covering multiple aspects (output, parameters, comparison, cost, warnings) in one block. While some sentences are highly compressed, every clause serves a distinct and necessary informative purpose.

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?

The definition is extremely complete for a complex, rules-based signal tool. It covers output scope, input constraints, resource costs, reliability warnings, and provides clear positioning against the entire set of sibling tools.

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?

The schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds crucial semantic meaning to the 'tf' parameter. It explains that choosing a candle size directly impacts the trade-off between speed/noise and conviction/slowness, which is vital for an agent selecting the correct input.

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 provides rules-based bias and signal metrics (score, confidence, setup, invalidation). It differentiates itself by offering 'Quick direction + one setup' compared to the detailed planning of get_trade_plan and macro context of get_market_regime.

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 provides explicit usage guidelines by contrasting it with three specific sibling tools. The agent is told to use this for quick directions and to consult other tools when needing specific trade plans or trend/volatility data.

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