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

With no annotations, the description still discloses meaningful behavior: the exact signals combined, the output scale and classification, the conditional Kelly position when bankroll is given, entry/stop/target levels and warnings, plus a per-call cost of 0.02 USDC via x402. It does not state read-only status or rate limits, but the pricing and output-shape disclosures add substantial context beyond the schema.

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 two dense sentences with no wasted words. The aggregation and output scale are front-loaded, followed by conditional Kelly sizing, output extras, and cost.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately enumerates the return: composite score, classification, Kelly sizing, entry/stop/target and warnings. Payment handling is covered by the paymentProof schema, leaving only minor gaps such as exact response field names and error behavior.

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%, so chain, address, bankroll and paymentProof are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the conditional effect of bankroll (Kelly-sized position) and otherwise does not expand parameter meanings beyond the schema, making 3 the appropriate baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it aggregates council_verdict, technical_indicators, funding_rates, fear_greed and hype_signal into a single -100 to +100 composite score with a named classification scale. It names the sibling tools it combines, so an agent can distinguish it from calling those individual tools or a generic scanner.

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 clear this is the aggregate option rather than a single-signal tool, and notes the conditional Kelly sizing when bankroll is supplied. It does not explicitly state when not to use it versus siblings like signal_scanner or when to call the component tools separately, so it stops short of a 5.

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