exchange_get_signalGet full detail for a single Exchange Signal by ID. Read-only. Returns the complete signal including constraints, participation rules, verification configuration, consideration declaration, and follow-on behavior. A signal does NOT create a Commitment, authorize execution, or guarantee payment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| signal_id | Yes | Signal ID. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds domain-specific transparency by listing what the response includes and by explicitly stating that a signal does NOT create a Commitment, authorize execution, or guarantee payment. This meaningfully goes beyond the annotations.
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 first sentence is front-loaded with the core purpose, and the final sentence provides valuable behavioral context. The standalone 'Read-only.' sentence is slightly redundant with the readOnlyHint annotation, so not every sentence fully earns its place.
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 no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the components of the returned signal and by clarifying what the signal does not do. For a single-parameter read-only getter, the remaining operational context is sufficiently complete.
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 the schema already documents signal_id as 'Signal ID.' The tool description adds Exchange Signal context, but no additional parameter semantics or format guidance beyond what the schema provides.
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 opening sentence states a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('Exchange Signal'), and access pattern ('by ID'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling exchange_list_signals. The title reinforces the same purpose with 'Signal Detail by ID'.
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 makes the usage context clear: use when you need the full detail of a single signal known by ID. It does not explicitly mention alternatives such as exchange_list_signals, so when-not-to-use guidance is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct concept: domain discovery, policy lookup, signal listing/detail, attempt detail, and preflight evaluation. There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between any two tools.
All tool names share the exchange_ prefix and mostly follow a predictable verb_noun pattern such as discover_domain, get_policy, and list_signals. The one minor deviation is exchange_preflight, which lacks an explicit object but remains clear.
Six tools is well-scoped for a focused read-only discovery and preflight server. Each tool earns its place and none feel redundant.
The read-only surface is fairly thorough for discovery, policy, signals, attempts, and preflight, but there is no tool to actually submit a proposal, create a commitment, or authorise an exchange. The descriptions repeatedly reference a real proposal flow that is not exposed, leaving agents unable to complete the core contribution workflow.