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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool measures a rate-of-change and returns signals, and it notes it is leading. However, it does not explicitly state it is a read-only analysis with no side effects, nor does it mention data sources, latency, or limitations. The core behavior is transparent, but additional behavioral details are missing. No contradictions with annotations since none exist.

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 moderately long but well-structured. It front-loads the core concept, explains the signals, and adds the leading-indicator context. Every sentence contributes useful information. It could be slightly tighter by removing the chain mention (already in schema), but overall it is efficient and informative.

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 there is no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating all possible signal values (SELL_EXHAUSTION, BUY_CLIMAX, ACCELERATION_UP, ACCELERATION_DOWN, STEADY). It also clarifies the leading nature. The single parameter is well-documented. The main gap is the lack of error conditions or unsupported token formats, but for a simple signal tool, the description is nearly complete. A 4 is justified.

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 already documents the token parameter as '0x-address or base58 mint' with 100% coverage. The description mentions 'RH-chain (0x) or Solana (base58)' which essentially repeats the schema's description without adding new semantic depth. It doesn't clarify formatting, validation, or edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema covers the parameter fully.

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 measures pressure rate-of-change (2nd derivative) and explicitly lists the signal types (SELL_EXHAUSTION, BUY_CLIMAX, etc.). It differentiates from siblings by claiming 'a signal no other tool computes,' giving a specific verb and resource. This makes it easy for an agent to understand what it does and how it differs.

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 the tool is for detecting acceleration/exhaustion and is a leading indicator, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like flow_inflection or timing_signal. It gives context (leading, before price reversal) but no exclusions or direct comparison to siblings. Thus, usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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