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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently describes the output categories (ENTER, WAIT_PULLBACK, TAKE_PROFIT, EXIT_NOW, WATCH) and the entry_quality score (0-100), and clarifies the input format (0x for RH-chain, base58 for Solana). It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but the nature of an analysis tool makes that evident. It omits error behavior or potential latency, but the core behavior is well disclosed.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core question ('Is NOW a good entry, a wait, or an exit point?') before elaborating on the three axes and output signal values. Every sentence adds relevant context (axes, signal categories, quality score, input formats). It is slightly verbose but efficient given the complexity it covers, and it avoids redundancy.

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, analysis-only tool with no output schema, the description provides a comprehensive picture: it explains the logic behind the signal (combining money flow, price extension, momentum), lists all possible signal values, and describes the entry_quality score. It does not mention edge cases (e.g., invalid token, unsupported chain) or provide interpretation details for the score, but the core usage and output are sufficiently 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?

The schema description for the only parameter (token) is already explicit: '0x-address or base58 mint'. The description repeats this same information ('RH-chain (0x) or Solana (base58)') without adding new semantic detail, such as examples, validation rules, or interpretation guidance. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not exceed it.

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's purpose: to assess whether NOW is a good entry, wait, or exit point for a token. It names the specific resource (token) and the action (timing analysis), and explicitly differentiates itself from siblings by claiming it fuses three axes 'no other tool combines' (money-flow direction, price extension, momentum). This distinguishes it from flow_inflection and exit_check.

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 when to use this tool (when a combined timing signal is needed) by stating it fuses three axes that no other tool combines. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or give conditional guidance like 'use flow_inflection for flow-only analysis' or 'use exit_check for a single exit signal'. The guidance is implied but not stated as direct usage rules.

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