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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and mostly does: it discloses append-only behavior, that outcomes are paper (simulated), that |return|>500% is excluded as a glitch, and explicitly warns it is 'descriptive, not a profit promise'. That is meaningful context an agent needs for interpreting trustworthiness. It does not discuss refresh cadence or data freshness.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the identity of the resource before the structural breakdown and the caveats. The signal-type enumeration adds concrete value rather than filler, though the long parenthetical list is slightly dense.

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 must convey return shape, and it does by describing by_signal_type and calibration_slices. For a zero-parameter read tool the picture is nearly complete; only the update cadence and whether the sample is live or historical is left unstated.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The schema is an empty object with no fields to document.

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 names a specific resource (an append-only signal track record) and enumerates its contents: per-signal sample size, 1h/6h/24h returns, directional accuracy, and calibration_slices. An agent knows exactly what payload it receives. It does not, however, contrast itself with sibling signal tools such as timing_signal or copy_signals.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'Lets an agent decide how much to trust each signal type', which suggests consulting it before acting on signals. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many sibling signal tools.

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