just-signal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the return values (grade, votes, verdict) and hints at error behavior for unknown tickers, but lacks detail on side effects, permissions, or rate limits. Adequate but not thorough.

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 a single paragraph that combines key information but uses metaphorical language and extraneous phrasing ('The panel advises, the reader decides'). Could be more concise while retaining essential details.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values and covers an error scenario. It provides a reasonable mental model of what the tool does, though some behavioral aspects are missing.

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 one required parameter (ticker). The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema's description ('US ticker, e.g. NVDA'). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 returns a doneness grade (RAW..CHARRED) plus votes from 11 investor lenses and a registry verdict for a single ticker. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_stock_quote and list_reports, though the metaphorical 'Chophouse' language may be slightly unclear for an AI agent.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions an error case ('if the ticker is not plated yet') but does not compare to siblings like get_scorecard or provide selection criteria.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the core behavior (audit, grading, proration) but omits details like result format, pagination, or whether all tickers are included. Acceptable for a zero-parameter tool but lacks depth.

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?

A single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output characteristics. Front-loaded with key action ('audit past signals') and ends with specific grading. No wasted words.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential functionality. It explains what the tool does and the grade logic. However, it could specify the return type or when the tool is applicable (e.g., requires historical data). Still, it's largely sufficient.

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 input schema has no parameters (schema coverage 100%), so baseline is 4. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is appropriate since none exist.

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 it audits past signals by comparing projected vs actual returns with specific grades (AHEAD/TRACKING/BEHIND). The verb 'audit' and resource 'past signals' are specific, and the grading detail distinguishes it from generic data retrieval tools.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings (e.g., get_panel_grade or list_reports). The description implies use for auditing signal performance but doesn't outline exclusions or alternative use cases.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'live' and 'baseline', but omits details on caching, rate limits, authentication, or destructiveness. The safety profile is unclear.

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, no redundancy, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every word adds value.

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 a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does well. However, missing details on return format or errors could be problematic for complex use.

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 a clear parameter description ('US ticker, e.g. NVDA'). The description adds no further parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Live stock/ETF quote (price + % change)' using a specific verb ('get' implied) and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_panel_grade, but does not explicitly differentiate from similar market data tools.

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 phrase 'via Just Signal's market-data relay' and 'Establishes a ticker's Day-0 baseline before projecting' gives context for use, but lacks explicit conditions or alternatives compared to siblings.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals ordering (newest first) but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or what constitutes 'recent'. Some behavior is disclosed but not comprehensive.

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 a single sentence with no filler, front-loading the key information. Every word serves a 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?

With one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete but missing details on return format or pagination. It covers the core functionality adequately for a simple list tool.

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 has one parameter ('limit') with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain its meaning or usage. The description fails to add semantic value for the parameter.

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 action (list), resource (reports), source (public library), and ordering (newest first). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like publish_report or get_scorecard.

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 usage for fetching a list of recent reports, but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or mention exclusions. However, the context of siblings makes it clear.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses grounding of live prices, server-side rendering, and rate-limiting for tokenless publishing. It does not cover error cases or idempotency, but the disclosed behaviors are sufficient for safe use.

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?

Five sentences pack actionable details without redundancy. The first sentence states the core action, and subsequent sentences provide critical constraints and context. No wasted words.

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 description explains the tool's purpose and key behavioral details, but with no output schema, it omits return value structure. It addresses complex parts (targets, assetOrSector) well, but could be more complete about the overall workflow.

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 33% (only token and sectors have descriptions). The description adds meaning for nested fields like assetOrSector format and target format, but does not explain briefingTitle, executiveSummary, or durationSeconds. Partial compensation.

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 specific action: 'Ground, render, and PUBLISH a Just Signal briefing to the public library.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_reports or get_stock_quote, which are read-only, by highlighting the publish operation.

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 provides explicit formatting rules for targets ('MUST be percentages or multiples, never dollars') and describes the optional token for bypassing rate limits. It implies when to use (for community contributions) but doesn't explicitly say when not to use. Lacks a direct alternative suggestion.

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