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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it states that the tool is paid, that forward validation is active, and that it provides unproven market intelligence rather than individualized advice. It does not detail failure/error behavior or price, but directs users to rcq://catalog for availability and price.

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?

Four concise sentences front-load the use case and outputs, then add limitation and pricing-lookup context. No redundant restatement of the tool name or schema, and each sentence contributes.

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?

For a single-parameter indicator with no output schema, the description specifies the expected outputs (score, state, multiplier), the paid workflow context, and the validation caveat. It could mention what happens without a valid payment signature or offer more return-format detail, but the core call context is covered.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the payment_signature parameter is already documented as an x402 payment authorization. The description adds the paid nature and price lookup but no parameter-specific detail beyond that, which matches the baseline 3 for full schema 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as a paid, regime-aware BTC accumulation-intensity indicator and explicitly lists its outputs: a 0-9 score, a LIGHT/BASE/ACCELERATE/AGGRESSIVE state, and an intensity multiplier. It does not use a strong action verb, but the accumulation-intensity use case distinguishes it from sibling funding-regime and macro-risk 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?

It gives a specific condition: use when a systematic accumulation workflow needs the score/state/multiplier. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the stated workflow is sufficiently specific to guide selection among the funding-regime and macro-risk siblings.

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