signalpulse-mcp

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the paid nature, cost structure, and the 402 payment-envelope behavior for uncredentialed calls, plus how to authenticate via X-API-KEY. This is valuable behavioral context beyond a generic function description, though it doesn't cover response format 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?

The description is a single compact sentence, front-loaded with purpose and containing payment details in a clearly delimited bracket. All information is relevant and no filler, though the bracket 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?

Given a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and the critical payment/auth behavior. It does not describe the return format, but for an AI analysis tool that is likely self-evident from the natural-language nature.

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 single 'question' parameter is fully documented in the schema with a description matching the scope. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no additional parameter semantics; baseline 3 applies.

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 identifies the tool as natural-language market analysis covering any instrument, sport, race, or prediction market. This distinguishes it from the specialized scan_*/signal_* siblings, though it lacks an explicit imperative verb like 'ask' or 'get'.

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?

It implies usage for general questions ('any question about any...'), but does not explicitly address when to prefer this over the numerous specialized scan/signal tools. There are no exclusion criteria or alternative tool names, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses 'FREE' (cost trait) and 'discovery' (read-only information retrieval), and its scope ('every paid tool'). It does not explicitly state there are no side effects, but the discovery nature strongly implies this; it lacks details on response format but that is secondary.

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 sentences, front-loaded with 'FREE' and 'discovery', and every word adds value. It is concise and well-structured without 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 simple discovery tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the content (instruments, sports, categories, parameter documentation), scope ('every paid tool'), and usage ('Call this first'). This is sufficient for an agent to understand its role among many siblings.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter explanations; it even mentions that it provides parameter documentation for other tools, which is about output, not its own inputs.

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 this is a discovery tool for all supported instruments, sports, categories, and per-endpoint parameter documentation. It distinguishes itself from the many sibling tools by explicitly covering every paid tool and being the first call to make.

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 phrase 'Call this first' provides explicit when-to-use guidance, indicating it should be invoked before other tools. It implies alternatives (the other tools) but doesn't explicitly name them or state when not to use this tool, so it misses a 5.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it discloses access constraints ('No auth, no payment'), data semantics ('roi_units = total R'), and behavioral details (machine-graded, daily/weekly/monthly buckets, retired desks frozen). This is substantive beyond a simple 'get leaderboard' statement.

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 sentences with zero waste. It front-loads 'FREE' and 'full guru roster board', then delivers key details (buckets, frozen desks, free access) without redundancy or filler.

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 0-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, this description is fully complete. It explains what data is returned (all desks, machine-graded, total R, buckets), the access status (free/public), and special cases (retired desks frozen). No significant gaps remain.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter information. Per baseline for 0-param tools, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to explain parameters since none exist.

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 provides 'the full guru roster board' with 'every desk's machine-graded record', including daily/weekly/monthly buckets and frozen retired desks. This is specific about the resource and its content, distinguishing it from siblings like scan_* or signal_* that serve different analytical purposes.

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 usage context by emphasizing 'FREE' and 'No auth, no payment', suggesting it is a public, zero-cost lookup. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or competing tools like track_record.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the tool's behavior: it is free, never deducts a credit, and provides conditional balance info only when X-API-KEY is set. This covers side effects (none) and authentication requirements, which is exemplary for a simple quote tool.

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?

Two sentences deliver all essential details: cost preview scope, output components, conditional balance, and the non-destructive guarantee. The opening 'FREE' immediately draws attention. No word is wasted, and the structure is logically organized from general to specific.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is nearly complete: it states what the tool provides, when it applies, and its safety profile. It doesn't discuss error handling or response shape, but those are less critical for a cost-preview tool without an output schema.

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 description already explains the 'tool' parameter clearly. The description adds context with 'any tool on this server', and the schema example 'analysis' or 'scan_forex' helps the agent select valid values. This modestly exceeds the baseline for well-documented parameters.

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 function: 'cost preview for any tool on this server'. It lists specific outputs (credit type, per-credit USD range, balance) and distinguishes it from sibling scan/signal tools as a meta-tool for pricing. The verb 'cost preview' is specific and unambiguous.

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: before invoking any other tool to preview cost. It doesn't explicitly say 'use before calling other tools' or mention alternatives, but the phrase 'for any tool on this server' makes the use case clear. The note about X-API-KEY adds a conditional usage context.

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

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses important behaviors: the paid nature, cost range, the 402 payment envelope for uncredentialed calls, and the required X-API-KEY setup. This goes well beyond minimal expectations.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: describes what it does, cost, payment method, error condition, and authentication setup. Despite being somewhat long, it is densely packed with essential operational details.

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?

The description covers payment, auth, and error handling well, but with no output schema it does not explicitly describe the success response format. For a free-text Q&A tool this is a minor gap, as the response type is implied but not specified.

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 has zero declared parameters (with additionalProperties for arbitrary strings), and the schema description points to the 'instruments' tool for docs. The description adds context that the input is a free-text question, which is useful despite the schema's 100% coverage.

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 function as a free-text front door for any sports/markets question, with routing and answering. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like scan_* and signal_* which are specialized for specific queries.

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 'front door' phrasing implies use for general questions, and the mention of per-endpoint parameter docs via the 'instruments' tool provides guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for specific cases.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the paid nature, cost in signal credits, the 402 payment envelope for uncredentialed calls, and the need for an API key or x402 out-of-band payment. It also mentions 'session-eligibility-aware' behavior, though this is left slightly vague.

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 main purpose is front-loaded in a short phrase, followed by style and payment details in a dense bracket. Every piece of information is necessary, but the payment/auth clause is long and could be split for readability, so it is not perfectly concise.

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?

The description covers the essential context: market scope, style options, cost, authentication, and error behavior (402 envelope). It mentions 'session-eligibility-aware' but does not elaborate, and it relies on the instruments tool for parameter docs. Given no output schema, this is reasonably complete but not exhaustive.

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 input schema has zero parameters and only points to another tool, but the description names a concrete parameter ('style') and lists its allowed values ('scalp|intraday|longterm'), adding meaningful semantics beyond the schema. It also correctly directs users to the instruments tool for full parameter documentation.

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 identifies the action ('scanned') and the exact resource: 'CMI scanner — 13 commodities/metals/indices CFDs scanned as one group'. This differentiates it from siblings like scan_crypto or scan_forex by specifying the asset class and grouped scope. The style parameter further clarifies the intended use.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool by defining the market group and supported styles ('style=scalp|intraday|longterm'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative scan tools, so it stops short of full guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the paid nature, cost structure, payment methods (signal credit or x402 USDC), and the uncredentialed behavior (returns 402 payment envelope). This is significant behavioral context beyond just 'compare players'. However, it does not describe return format or whether the operation is read-only, so it is not a 5.

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 a single, dense sentence. The purpose is front-loaded ('Compare & rank 2+ named players'), followed by necessary payment details. It is efficient and every clause provides useful information, though the payment information is extensive and could be seen as cluttered. Still, it 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?

The description thoroughly covers payment and authentication requirements, which is critical for a paid endpoint. However, it does not explain what the tool returns (ranked comparisons? format?) or any other behavioral details. Since there is no output schema, the description should have filled this gap but does not. It also leaves parameter syntax to an external tool. Overall, it is partially 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?

The schema has 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4, but the description adds no parameter details. It mentions 'named players' but does not specify how to pass them (e.g., query param names). The schema description points to the 'instruments' tool for docs, but the tool description itself is silent. Thus, it does not fully compensate for the lack of formal parameter documentation, warranting a 3.

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 the core function clearly: 'Compare & rank 2+ named players'. This is a specific verb+resource+scope. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, the '2+ named players' scope differentiates it from market-specific scans. The purpose is clear, but it lacks an explicit sibling comparison.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions payment details and directs to the 'instruments' tool for parameter docs, which is not a usage guideline. There is no 'use this when...' or mention of exclusions/alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It clearly warns that the tool is paid, costs 1 signal credit, and returns a 402 payment envelope for uncredentialed calls. It also explains how to authenticate via X-API-KEY or pay out-of-band at the endpoint URL. This is valuable context beyond the basic scanner description.

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 a single sentence with a bracketed payment clause, conveying the purpose and the critical cost/authentication behavior efficiently. It's front-loaded with the core function, but the payment information is somewhat run-on. Still, every part adds necessary context.

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 scanner with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the tool's scope and the payment requirement, but it doesn't describe the return format or any parameter examples. The pointer to 'instruments' helps, but the description alone leaves some uncertainty about what the successful response contains. Overall, it's adequate but has gaps.

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?

There are 0 explicit parameters, so the baseline is 4. The schema allows arbitrary additional string properties and refers to the 'instruments' tool for per-endpoint parameter documentation, which is a useful pointer. The main description doesn't mention any parameters, but that's acceptable given no required params.

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 identifies the tool as a crypto scanner with a specific scope: dynamic Top-25 by market cap, ETF flows, funding, on-chain, and GEX. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like scan_forex, scan_futures, and scan_crypto_lite. The core purpose is immediately apparent despite the payment notice.

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 states what the tool does but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. The only usage hint is the schema description pointing to the 'instruments' tool for parameter docs, but that doesn't address selection among siblings. No exclusions or alternative tool recommendations are given.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it notes the deterministic and non-LLM behavior, the $0.05 x402 cost, 402 payment envelope for uncredentialed calls, and how to authenticate via X-API-KEY or x402 out-of-band. This is far more than most tools disclose.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose ('Lite tick — deterministic...') and then adds necessary pricing/auth context. While it is a single dense sentence, all information is relevant and packed without redundancy. It could be split for readability but remains succinct.

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 the tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description is complete: it explains what data is returned (snapshot + fear & greed), the pricing model, the payment/auth flow, and the endpoint path. It even points to the 'instruments' tool for schema details.

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 has zero defined parameters, so by baseline it starts at 4. The description doesn't add parameter-level details, but the schema's additionalProperties hint that arbitrary query strings are allowed, and the description's asset list (BTC/ETH/SOL) provides context for what the endpoint covers.

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 provides a 'deterministic BTC/ETH/SOL snapshot + fear & greed' and explicitly differentiates it as 'Lite' and 'no LLM' from the paid scan/crypto sibling. The verb 'snapshot' and specific asset list make the purpose unambiguous.

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 this is a lightweight, inexpensive alternative to the paid 'scan/crypto' by calling it a 'funnel' to that endpoint. It mentions costs and authentication, but does not explicitly state 'use this instead of X when...' or name direct alternatives beyond the funnel to scan/crypto.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It transparently reveals the payment gate behavior (uncredentialed calls return a 402 envelope), the exact cost range, and payment options. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it does not describe the output format or read-only nature.

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 a single dense sentence with a bracketed payment addendum. It is reasonably front-loaded with the purpose and contains only relevant operational details. The structure could be more readable, but it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key operational aspects: payment requirements, authentication mechanisms, and the 402 error path. It does not explain the response content, but that is appropriately left to the schema or external docs. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 has zero formal properties and relies on additionalProperties, making schema coverage trivially high. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not add direct parameter semantics. However, the schema description itself points to the 'instruments' tool for parameter docs, which is an indirect aid.

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 identifies the tool as an 'Economic-event reaction scanner' and specifies its core behavior: mapping 'release surprise' to a 'market reaction playbook'. This distinguishes it from sibling scan tools by its economic-event focus, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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 provides clear usage context, including the paid nature, cost per credit, and authentication requirements (X-API-KEY or x402). It also implies the need for credentials by mentioning the 402 response for uncredentialed calls. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over other scan_* alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explicitly discloses that the tool is paid (1 signal credit), requires credentials (X-API-KEY), and returns a 402 envelope for uncredentialed calls. This is strong behavioral transparency beyond typical annotations, though it does not describe successful response format.

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 a single dense sentence, front-loading the purpose and key features before bracketing payment details. It contains no wasted words, though the run-on structure and mixing of purpose and payment could be better organized.

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?

The description covers purpose, payment, and authentication, but lacks information about the successful response payload or format. Since there is no output schema, the agent must infer what the tool returns beyond the 402 error case, leaving a moderate gap.

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 input schema is empty with open additionalProperties, so the description's mention of 'contest=gpp|cash, slate override, book=dk' provides concrete parameter examples and hints at accepted values. It also directs users to the 'instruments' tool for full parameter docs, compensating for the schema's lack of defined properties.

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 provides direct fantasy advice, enumerating specific use cases (start/sit, DFS lineup, waivers, trades). This distinguishes it from sibling scan_* tools by domain (fantasy sports) and action (advice, not comparative scans).

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 usage for fantasy sports queries but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives like scan_compare or signal_sports. There are no exclusions, but the context is clear enough to infer applicability.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently reveals the paid nature, exact cost range, payment methods (signal credit or x402 USDC), authentication via X-API-KEY, and the 402 payment envelope error behavior. This is substantial contextual information beyond the basic tool purpose.

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 core functionality is front-loaded ('FX scanner, 28 pairs, style=...'), with payment details in a bracketed parenthetical. It is reasonably concise, though the payment portion is dense and could be split into clearer units.

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?

The description covers purpose, payment, and error behavior, but with no output schema, it omits what the scan returns or how the results should be interpreted. It also does not explain additional required parameters beyond 'style'. The need to consult the 'instruments' tool for documentation is mentioned in the schema description, not the main description, leaving a gap.

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 input schema has zero formal parameters (only additionalProperties string), so the description's mention of 'style=scalp|intraday|longterm' adds concrete parameter semantics. However, the full parameter documentation is deferred to the 'instruments' tool, so the description is not fully self-contained.

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 it is an FX scanner with 28 pairs and style options (scalp|intraday|longterm). This distinguishes it from sibling scanners like scan_crypto and scan_market by explicitly targeting forex.

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 implied as a forex scanning tool, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The payment details are provided, but the description does not state a clear selection criterion relative to sibling tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description transparently discloses the paid nature, cost structure, and behavior for uncredentialed calls (402 payment envelope) along with required auth setup—far beyond minimal disclosure.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence; payment and auth information are relevant and concise. No wasted words.

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?

Covers purpose, categories, payment, and auth, but does not explain response format or how to specify category beyond the list. The schema points to the instruments tool for parameter docs, which helps, but the description alone leaves some practical gaps.

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 has 0 defined parameters with open additionalProperties; description hints at category values (index/energy/metals/ags/rates) which adds meaning, but does not explicitly document the category parameter or other query parameters. Baseline 4 for 0 params.

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?

Clearly states it is a futures scanner with specific categories (index/energy/metals/ags/rates), distinguishing it from sibling scanners like scan_crypto or scan_forex.

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?

Implies use for futures scanning by category but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like signal_futures or scan_compare. The payment caveat is a usage consideration but not a sibling alternative.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses the paid nature (signal credit or x402 USDC), the cost range, the behavior for uncredentialed calls (402 payment envelope), and authentication methods (X-API-KEY or x402). It also indicates the output is 3 plays. This is substantial behavioral context, though it doesn't describe response format or side effects.

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 relatively compact, with the core purpose front-loaded and payment/auth details encapsulated in brackets. The sentence is a bit dense but each clause carries necessary info. Not perfectly structured but concise enough.

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?

The tool lacks an output schema and annotations. The description covers cost, auth, and error envelope, but doesn't explain how to specify which game or what parameters are accepted, instead pointing to another tool. This leaves significant invocation ambiguity, making the context only partially 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?

The input schema has zero documented parameters, and the description does not enumerate any. It defers to the 'instruments' tool for parameter docs, which is helpful but leaves parameter meaning entirely uncovered. Given 0 params, baseline is 4, but the description's dismissal of parameters reduces it to 3.

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 performs deep single-match analysis and outputs 3 ranked +EV plays, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling scan_* tools beyond the 'game' resource, so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative scan_* or signal_* tools. The only cross-reference is to the 'instruments' tool for parameter documentation, not for tool selection context. Payment and auth details are present but do not constitute usage guidelines.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the paid nature, cost range, 402 payment envelope for uncredentialed calls, and authentication methods (X-API-KEY or x402). This is substantial behavioral context, though it omits details on output shape or rate limits.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with purpose, followed by bracketed payment/auth context. Every clause earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description covers what, cost, auth, and endpoint, but lacks any detail about the return format or typical usage scenarios. For a paid scan tool, an example response or description of the data would make it more 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?

The schema has zero properties (with additionalProperties as string), so there are no parameters for the description to explain. The description references payment/auth but not parameter usage. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool where the schema description points to 'instruments' for docs.

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 'Whole-field golf scan across every bet type' – a specific verb (scan), resource (golf), and scope (whole-field, every bet type). This distinguishes it from sibling scan tools by sport and coverage breadth.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like scan_player or scan_market. The 'whole-field' phrase implies broad coverage, but there are no exclusions or named alternatives. Usage context is limited to payment/auth requirements, not comparative use cases.

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

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

The description discloses the paywall, cost specifics, 402 payment envelope behavior for uncredentialed calls, and both authentication methods (X-API-KEY or x402). This is substantial behavioral context, especially with no annotations provided, though it does not mention whether the operation is read-only or describe response details.

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 dense but front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by essential payment and authentication details. Every sentence carries necessary information, and it is not unnecessarily verbose.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, cost, authentication, and error behavior, but it leaves parameter definitions entirely to a separate tool and does not explain the response format. For a paid tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is only partially 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?

The input schema has no named properties but allows arbitrary string parameters via additionalProperties, and its description points to the 'instruments' tool for parameter docs. The tool description itself adds no parameter semantics beyond that, so the schema's guidance is sufficient for a baseline score.

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 identifies the tool as providing player head-to-head betting and fantasy verdicts, which distinguishes it from other scan_* tools. Although it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'scan', the resource focus and expected output are unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description focuses on payment and authentication but does not mention use cases, criteria for selection, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers substantial behavioral context: it discloses the paid nature (signal credit or x402 USDC), cost range, 402 payment envelope for uncredentialed calls, and authentication via X-API-KEY. It also mentions the style parameter and where to find full parameter docs, which is excellent transparency.

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 a single, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and packs essential operational details (payment, auth, style). Every element is relevant and directly useful, with no wasted words.

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 the tool's complexity (paid, cross-asset, custom parameters) and the lack of annotations or output schema, the description provides strong coverage: purpose, payment, auth, and parameter hints. It omits explicit details about the return format, but points to 'instruments' for parameter docs, making it sufficiently complete for selection and invocation.

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 defines zero parameters (baseline 4), and the description adds meaningful detail by specifying 'style=scalp|intraday|longterm' and pointing to the 'instruments' tool for per-endpoint parameter docs. This goes beyond the schema's open-ended additionalProperties and helps the agent understand how to construct calls.

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 'Cross-asset market scanner' with specific coverage details (42 instruments: 28 FX + metals/indices/crypto CFDs), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like scan_forex or scan_crypto that target narrower asset classes. The scope is precise and the verb is implied ('scans'), which is sufficient.

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 use for broad cross-asset scanning but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as scan_forex or scan_crypto. There is no mention of exclusions or direct comparisons to sibling tools, so usage context is present but implicit.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool is paid, details the cost structure, and explains that uncredentialed calls return a 402 payment envelope with instructions for setting X-API-KEY or paying via x402. This is substantial behavioral context beyond what structured fields provide.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose before adding necessary payment and authentication details. It is dense but each element is useful, especially the cost and credential requirements. Not excessively verbose, though slightly packed.

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?

The description explains the tool's purpose and payment/auth requirements, but it does not describe the expected input parameters (e.g., player identifier) or the output structure. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should carry more weight. The schema description does point to 'instruments' for parameter docs, which partially compensates.

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 input schema has 0 defined parameters and uses additionalProperties, so the baseline is 4. The description does not add specific parameter information, but the schema description directs callers to the 'instruments' tool for per-endpoint parameter docs. Given the zero-parameter baseline, this is acceptable.

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 'Single-player stat-projected outlook — props + fantasy projection', which identifies the resource (a single player) and the specific content (props and fantasy projection). It distinguishes from sibling tools like scan_fantasy or scan_game by emphasizing the single-player scope and props/fantasy focus.

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 usage (for single-player stat projections) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions payment requirements and points to 'instruments' for parameter docs, but lacks clear when-to-use or exclusion guidance relative to sibling scan tools.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool is paid, the cost range per signal credit, that uncredentialed calls return a 402 payment envelope, and how to authenticate. This adds substantial operational context, though it does not describe the response format or rate limits.

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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and appends payment/access details in brackets. It is efficient but slightly cluttered due to the volume of payment specifics packed in.

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?

The description thoroughly covers payment and authentication but lacks detail about what the scan returns, how the superforecaster scan works, or when it should be preferred over similar prediction-market tools. The absence of an output schema and annotations makes this a notable gap.

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 has zero defined parameters, so the baseline is 4. The schema description already points to the 'instruments' tool for parameter docs, and the tool description itself adds no parameter meaning, which is acceptable given there are no parameters 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 clearly identifies a prediction-market superforecaster scan with explicit target platforms (Polymarket/Manifold/PredictIt) and a specific verb (scan). This distinguishes it from other scan_* and signal_* tools in the sibling list.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like signal_polymarket or scan_market. It focuses entirely on payment and access details, leaving selection criteria unstated.

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

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 explains that the tool is paid, the cost per credit, and that uncredentialed calls return a 402 payment envelope with two payment methods. This goes beyond typical descriptions, though it doesn't describe success response format.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the purpose and appends payment details in brackets. While dense, each piece of information (purpose, cost, failure mode, authentication) is useful and earns its place. It could be split for readability but remains efficient.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, pricing, payment methods, and failure behavior. It omits what a successful response contains, but that is not critical since there is no output schema and the schema description points to instruments for parameter details.

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 input schema has 0 parameters and uses additionalProperties, with a note to call the 'instruments' tool for parameter docs. Since 0 params yields a baseline of 4, and the description adds context about the endpoint and payment, it meets the baseline without needing to detail parameters.

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 identifies the tool as a GB/IRE horse-racing card scan that provides the highest-EV selection. The verb 'scan' and resource 'horse-racing card' are specific, and the market scope distinguishes it from sibling scan tools like scan_crypto and scan_forex.

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 provides clear context that this tool is for GB/IRE horse-racing cards, implying when to use it. It also includes important usage guidance about authentication and payment (X-API-KEY or x402), but does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusion scenarios.

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

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 is free, requires no auth/payment, and returns a sample of one matchup. However, it does not explain what 'full-depth sample' includes, output format, or any limitations beyond the single matchup.

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 a single, tightly-worded sentence that front-loads the 'FREE' hook and quickly conveys the purpose and access requirements. Every word contributes value with no 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?

Given the tool's extreme simplicity (0 params, no annotations, no output schema), the description is somewhat adequate but leaves ambiguity about what 'full-depth sample' contains and what sports are featured. It could clarify the nature of the data returned.

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 has zero parameters, so the description need not add parameter details. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly implies no input is needed ('pick-of-the-day').

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 that this tool provides a free sample of the sports engine on one featured matchup. It uses a specific verb ('scan' implied by the name, and 'sample') and distinguishes itself from sibling scan_* tools by being a free 'pick-of-the-day' preview.

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?

It implies usage for a free trial or demo by emphasizing 'FREE' and 'No auth, no payment', but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like scan_compare or signal_sports. It gives context (sports engine, one matchup) but lacks clear when-not-to-use guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses payment requirements (signal credit/x402), authentication (X-API-KEY), and the 402 response for uncredentialed calls. However, it does not explain the return format or other behavioral aspects like rate limits or failure modes.

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 a dense, run-on sentence with multiple clauses and jargon. Although it packs necessary payment details, it is not well-structured or front-loaded, making it harder for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

The tool appears complex (paid, specialized API) with no output schema, so the description should explain return values and usage context. It covers payment/auth but omits response format and error behavior beyond 402, leaving the agent uncertain about invocation success.

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 has zero defined properties and defers to the 'instruments' tool for docs; the description partially compensates by documenting the ?handle parameter and its narrowing effect. This adds meaning, but full parameter documentation is not provided.

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 identifies the tool as a Polymarket tweet-count bin scanner and describes its algorithm (running count vs posting distribution, divergence). It distinguishes from sibling signal_* tools by resource (Polymarket, tweet-count). However, the phrasing is technical and lacks an explicit imperative verb, making it slightly less clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives; it only provides payment info and a parameter example. The 'Attention' title and Polymarket context imply usage, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing the paid nature, exact cost, payment methods (signal credit or x402 USDC), and the 402 payment envelope behavior for uncredentialed calls. It also specifies how to authenticate via X-API-KEY or pay out-of-band. This is substantial behavioral context, though it omits details about the response format 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?

The description is a single, dense sentence that efficiently packs purpose, cost, payment options, and authentication guidance. It front-loads the core purpose and avoids unnecessary filler, earning its place despite the bracketed payment details adding moderate length.

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 paid signal endpoint with no annotations, no output schema, and a generic schema, the description covers purpose, payment, auth, and where to find parameter docs. However, it lacks concrete parameter examples, a description of the return payload, and explicit use-case differentiation, leaving some gaps that an agent must resolve by consulting other tools or making trial calls.

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 input schema has no defined properties but allows additional string parameters, and the description explicitly directs users to the 'instruments' tool for per-endpoint parameter docs. This pointer is useful but does not provide any actual parameter names or semantics within the description itself, leaving the agent dependent on another tool for invocation details.

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 identifies the tool as providing a 'Thematic-basket / sector-ETF signal,' which clearly indicates the resource type and distinguishes it from sibling signal tools like signal_equities or signal_futures. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'get' or 'fetch,' making the intended action slightly implicit.

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 provides practical usage context regarding payment and authentication, and advises calling the 'instruments' tool for parameter documentation. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other signal tools or provide exclusions, so the usage scenarios are only implied by the thematic-basket focus.

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

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

No annotations, so description carries full burden. It explicitly states this is a paid tool with cost per credit, what happens without credentials (402 payment envelope), and how to authenticate (X-API-KEY or x402). It also discloses the scan method. Does not mention read-only behavior or output details, but disclosure is strong.

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 dense and somewhat run-on, mixing product name, scan logic, payment info, and auth instructions in one long sentence with semicolons and brackets. It is not overly verbose but lacks clear structuring; could be broken into bullet-like segments for readability.

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 no output schema and a paid tool, the description covers core usage (what, how, payment, auth, narrowing param) well. It doesn't describe return format, but the complexity is moderate and the instruments sibling can fill gaps. Overall fairly 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?

There are 0 declared params, so baseline is 4. Description adds the `class=fx|equity` narrowing parameter, giving extra meaning beyond the empty schema. It doesn't fully document additional properties, but points to instruments tool for details.

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?

Description clearly states a specific Polymarket daily Up/Down scan across FX (11 pairs) AND equities (18 tickers incl SPY), with fair-value band vs venue book and best interval-disjoint divergence. This distinguishes it from sibling scan/signal tools by scope and method.

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?

Provides clear context on use (daily up/down scan, ?class=fx|equity to narrow) and payment/auth requirements, but does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use. The mention of instruments tool for parameter docs is in schema, not description, so no explicit exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly discloses the paid nature, cost, the 402 payment envelope for uncredentialed calls, and how to authenticate via X-API-KEY or x402. This is useful behavioral context, though it does not describe the return format or data structure.

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 a single long sentence inside brackets, packed with payment details. It front-loads the core purpose but becomes dense and somewhat unstructured. It conveys necessary information but could be broken into clearer segments for readability.

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?

The description covers payment, cost, and authentication thoroughly, but leaves out what the signal returns and what 'signal-type gating' means. Since there is no output schema, the description should provide more detail on expected output, but it does point to 'instruments' for parameter docs, offering a partial path to completeness.

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 has 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The schema description already directs users to 'instruments' for parameter docs, and the description reinforces this by mentioning 'GET /api/signal/equities' and the x402 endpoint. No additional parameter semantics are needed since there are no explicit parameters.

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 says 'Equities signal with signal-type gating,' which indicates the tool provides signals for equities but lacks a clear verb or explanation of what the signal actually contains. It distinguishes from siblings by asset class but is otherwise vague about the core functionality.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus other signal tools. It only mentions payment/authentication instructions and points to 'instruments' for parameter docs, but provides no guidance on selecting this tool over alternatives like scan_* or other signal_* tools.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the paid nature, credit cost, auth requirements, and the 402 payment envelope for uncredentialed calls. It does not mention return format or rate limits, but the key operational behavior is covered.

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 front-loaded with a clear action and scope, followed by necessary pricing and auth details. The bracketed payment/auth block is dense but each piece contributes actionable information; slightly more separation would improve readability.

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 the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description provides reasonable completeness: data coverage, pricing, auth, error behavior, and an alternative endpoint. Exact response structure and optional query parameters are deferred to the instruments tool, which is an acceptable trade-off.

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 has zero named parameters and defers parameter docs to the free instruments tool. The description adds useful context by listing the data dimensions the tool scans for, which is appropriate for the baseline 0-param score.

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 identifies the tool as an F1 race-weekend field scan and enumerates the specific data categories it covers (winner/podium/top-N/H2H/constructor/quali). This distinguishes it from broader sibling tools like signal_sports and other signal scans.

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?

It explicitly states the F1 race-weekend scope and provides an alternative route through signal/sports?sport=f1. Payment/auth prerequisites are also clearly outlined, telling the agent what is needed before invocation.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior itself. It does disclose billing, cost range, 402 error for uncredentialed calls, 409 pre-season/rollover behavior, and required header. The cryptic 'verdict-gated, sprint-205' reduces clarity but doesn't hide the core paid/error behavior.

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 opening segment is purpose-rich and front-loaded, but the rest is a dense run-on of billing and error details with unexplained shorthand ('verdict-gated, sprint-205'). It is under 100 words but not tightly structured.

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 zero-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation requirements: what it does, payment, auth, and error paths. It does not describe the success response shape or contrast with sibling signal tools, but it is sufficient for initial selection and invocation.

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 has zero declared parameters; the schema description itself points to instruments for per-endpoint docs. Zero-param baseline is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond that pointer.

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 identifies an FPL-specific engine covering captaincy, transfers, and squad builds, which distinguishes it from sibling signal tools. However, it lacks a direct verb (e.g., 'generate'/'get') and leans on jargon like 'baseline-anchored projections on the official-points ruler.'

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 paid/auth flow is explicit (set X-API-KEY, x402 payment, 402 envelope), and it points to instruments for parameter docs. It never states when to prefer this over sibling signal_* tools or what conditions gate use beyond payment, so usage context is only implied by the FPL domain.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: the tool is paid, costs 1 signal credit within a price range, and uncredentialed calls trigger a 402 payment envelope requiring API key or x402 payment. It also gives the endpoint path for out-of-band payment. This adds meaningful context beyond a simple 'returns a signal' statement.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then provides necessary payment and endpoint details. Every clause serves a purpose, and there is no filler. It could be seen as dense, but it remains readable and efficient.

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?

The tool is a paid signal endpoint with no output schema, so the description should cover both payment behavior and expected results. It thoroughly covers payment behavior, but it does not describe what a successful response contains or what categories are available. It also relies on the schema to direct users to the 'instruments' tool for parameter docs, which is not mentioned in the description itself.

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 input schema has no defined properties but includes additionalProperties of type string, implying arbitrary query parameters. The schema description points to the 'instruments' tool for parameter docs, but the tool description itself does not explain any parameters or categories. The phrase 'by category' hints at a parameter but gives no details. Since the description adds no meaning beyond the schema and the schema itself is vague, the score is low.

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 'Futures signal by category', identifying the resource (futures signal) and the differentiation (by category). It distinguishes from sibling signal tools like signal_equities or signal_perps by specifying futures. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', but the intended action is obvious.

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 provides payment prerequisites: 'Uncredentialed calls return the 402 payment envelope; set X-API-KEY on the MCP connection or pay x402 out-of-band.' This tells the agent that credentials are required for successful use. It does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like scan_futures, nor does it mention exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does exceptionally well: it discloses paid access (signal credit or x402 USDC), exact cost range, the 402 payment envelope failure mode for uncredentialed calls, and both authentication methods (X-API-KEY or out-of-band x402). It also explains the computational approach (official-catalog floors + Poisson/empirical base-rate bands).

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 a single dense sentence but front-loaded with the core purpose ('Gaia — Polymarket climate/severe/geo scan'). Every clause adds valuable information (scope, methodology, filtering, payment, auth). It is slightly run-on and could be split for readability, but nothing is wasted.

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 complex paid tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers a lot: purpose, methodology, query narrowing, payment terms, and endpoint. However, it does not describe the response structure/return values, and it defers full parameter documentation to the 'instruments' tool. Given the richness it does provide, this is a minor gap.

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 input schema is effectively empty (additionalProperties only) and defers to the 'instruments' tool for docs. The description adds value by giving one concrete parameter example ('?family=quake_count narrows'), which helps agents understand how to shape queries. Since there are no formal parameters, the baseline of 4 applies, and the description meets 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 specifies a clear action (scan) and resource (Polymarket climate/severe/geo data) with detailed scope (hottest-year rank, Arctic sea-ice min, earthquake counts, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling signal_* tools by focusing on a narrow domain and methodology.

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 implied by the domain-specific content ('climate/severe/geo scan') and the paid nature, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives or when not to use it. The '?family=quake_count' example hints at narrowing usage but does not provide exclusions or sibling comparisons.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It openly discloses that the tool is paid, specifies the cost structure, and explains the 402 payment-envelope behavior for uncredentialed calls and the authentication requirement. This is significant behavioral context beyond the bare 'generate signal' statement.

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 a single dense sentence with the core purpose front-loaded ('On-demand signal for any instrument') followed by necessary payment and auth details in brackets. Every clause adds value, though it could be split into two sentences for readability.

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?

The description covers payment, cost, authentication, and error behavior, which is good for a paid endpoint. However, it does not describe what the returned signal looks like (no output schema), and it only vaguely references parameter documentation. Given the tool's complexity and lack of annotations, more detail about response format or parameter handling would improve completeness.

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?

There are zero defined parameters, so the baseline is 4. The input schema's description notes that query parameters are allowed (additionalProperties) and directs users to the 'instruments' tool for per-endpoint parameter docs, which is helpful. The tool description itself adds no extra parameter detail, but this is acceptable given the schema guidance.

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 provides an 'On-demand signal for any instrument,' which is a specific verb+resource combo. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling signal tools like signal_equities or signal_basket, but the generic 'any instrument' phrasing implies a broad capability.

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 gives practical context: payment is required, uncredentialed calls return a 402, and users should set X-API-KEY. It also points to the 'instruments' tool for parameter docs. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this vs the many specialized signal_* siblings, leaving that inference to the name and 'any instrument' phrase.

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

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

The description discloses critical behavioral details: it is a paid tool requiring a signal credit or x402 USDC, with a specific cost range, and uncredentialed calls return a 402 payment envelope. It also explains the comparison logic (realized floor + trend-implied band vs bucket books) and the narrowing family parameter. No annotations exist, so this is valuable context.

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 dense but well-organized, leading with the tool's purpose and then covering cost, authentication, and a parameter hint. The second sentence is long but each component (payment, auth, endpoint) is relevant for using the tool correctly.

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?

The description covers purpose, payment, auth, and a key parameter, but it does not explicitly describe the response structure or content beyond 'best divergence.' Since there is no output schema, a brief note on return format would improve completeness, but the core usage is adequately conveyed.

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 input schema has zero properties and only points to the 'instruments' tool for docs. The description adds meaningful parameter semantics by introducing '?family=cpi_yoy|unrate|us10y' with concrete value options, which the schema lacks. This partially compensates for the empty schema, though it may not cover all possible parameters.

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 identifies the tool as a 'Polymarket econ-threshold ladder scan' covering CPI inflation, unemployment, and 10y yield. It specifies the action (scan), the resource (econ-threshold ladders), and the distinguishing scope (macro indicators), setting it apart from sibling signal tools.

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 context is implied through the macro focus and the family parameter, but no explicit when-to-use or alternatives are provided. The schema description instructs calling the 'instruments' tool for parameter docs, which is helpful but not a usage guideline.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses several important behaviors: a 'refund-honest 409 when nothing clears the floor', a '402 payment envelope' for uncredentialed calls, and a 'descriptive framing until the pre-registered bar'. These give an agent a good sense of what happens in edge cases, though it doesn't cover timing or rate limits.

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 a dense, single block but contains no fluff — every clause adds methodological, output, error, or payment information. The main content is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by payment details in brackets. It could be better structured with separators, but it is appropriately sized for the complexity.

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 no output schema and no annotations, this description is exceptionally complete. It explains the scan target, pricing reference, output trade specification, error codes (409, 402), payment cost and method, authentication mechanism, and even a 'descriptive framing' mode. It leaves little ambiguity for an agent deciding whether to call and what to expect.

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 has 0 defined parameters, and the schema defers to the 'instruments' tool for parameter docs. With 0 params, the baseline is 4; the description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but none are required since there are no explicit parameters 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 begins with 'Perps — Polymarket Perps dislocation scan' and clearly specifies the resource (Polymarket perps) and the action (scanning for dislocations). It details the methodology (cross-venue reference, round-trip taker + book walk) and the output (convergence trade with entry/TP/SL, Kelly size, EV, ladder), which distinguishes it from sibling signal tools that cover other asset classes.

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 provides clear context for when to call: it identifies the exact asset class (perps) and the signal generation method. It also specifies payment requirements and authentication (X-API-KEY) and error conditions (409/402), which are essential usage conditions. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it misses the exclusion aspect.

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

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses payment requirements (1 signal credit or x402 USDC), cost range, and the need to set X-API-KEY or pay out-of-band. It also warns that uncredentialed calls return a 402 payment envelope, which is important behavioral context beyond basic operation.

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 a single long sentence with semicolons and bracketed payment information. It is front-loaded with purpose but packs in a lot of detail, making it dense and slightly harder to parse at a glance.

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 paid tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose, required sport parameter, payment/auth flow, and what the signal is derived from. It stops short of describing the response structure or rate limits, but the essential invocation context is present.

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 input schema has zero properties and only refers to the 'instruments' tool. The description compensates by defining the 'sport' parameter, listing its supported values, and marking it required, which is meaningful semantic guidance the schema lacks.

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 opens with 'PM Sports — Polymarket per-sport moneyline scan' and immediately details the methodology (anchored to de-vigged sportsbook consensus, divergence, CLOB depth). It clearly states a specific verb ('scan') and resource (moneyline), and the list of supported sports distinguishes it from other signal tools.

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 specifies the required 'sport' parameter and enumerates accepted values (soccer board/league keys, mlb, nfl, etc.), and notes that calls are paid. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling signal tools such as signal_sports or signal_polymarket.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it discloses the paid nature, exact cost structure, payment methods (signal credit or x402 USDC), the 402 payment envelope on uncredentialed calls, and authentication setup (X-API-KEY). It also states a data-veracity rule ('no invented probabilities — venue numbers only'). It does not cover output format or rate limits, which would be useful, but the transparency for a paid API is well above average.

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 dense and front-loaded with the core idea, but it's presented as a single run-on sentence with a bracketed payment/authentication appendix. The 'Statecraft —' prefix is cryptic and adds little, and the financial details are awkwardly bolted on. It's not overly long, but clearer structure (e.g., separating the tool function from payment/auth) would improve readability.

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 no annotations or output schema, the description does a good job covering purpose, usage context, payment, and authentication for a paid tool. However, it omits response shape, pagination, and any error handling beyond the 402 case, which are material for integration. It's adequate but not comprehensive for the tool's complexity.

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 input schema defines zero formal parameters and only has additionalProperties, deferring to the 'instruments' tool for docs. The description adds concrete meaning by documenting the 'tag' query parameter with its possible values (politics|geopolitics|elections). Since the parameter count is effectively 0, the baseline is 4, and the description's tag documentation elevates it slightly; however, full parameter docs are still delegated, so 4 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as a 'Polymarket politics/geopolitics/elections scan' with specific methodologies ('depth-verified sum-arb on outcome ladders OR principal-wire event dislocations'), which distinguishes it from the many signal_* siblings by domain and strategy. The verb 'scan' and resource 'politics/geopolitics/elections' give a precise, actionable purpose.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (political/geopolitical/election market scans, arbitrage on outcome ladders, event dislocations from world-leader posts) and mentions the '?tag=politics|geopolitics|elections' narrowing option. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the paid nature, cost per credit, and the 402 payment envelope for uncredentialed calls, along with the X-API-KEY or x402 alternatives. This is valuable behavioral context beyond a simple purpose statement.

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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose before covering payment/auth details. It is moderately long but every clause contributes critical information; no filler or repetition.

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?

Payment, authentication, and the general purpose are well covered. However, there is no description of the successful return value or output format, and no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over its many siblings. Given no output schema, more detail on expected results would make it more 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?

There are 0 parameters in the schema, and the schema description itself points to the free 'instruments' tool for per-endpoint parameter documentation. This is baseline-appropriate for zero params and provides useful redirection for additional query parameter needs.

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?

Description clearly states it is a 'Prediction-market scanner — value vs calibrated probability' with specific domain categories, making the tool's action and resource clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling signal_* tools, but the unique Polymarket focus and descriptive details are sufficient.

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 context is implied: it is a prediction-market scanner and would be used when such signals are needed. Payment and authentication instructions are provided, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus alternatives like signal_attention or signal_pm_sports.

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

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 explicitly discloses the paid nature, exact cost per credit, the 402 payment envelope returned to uncredentialed callers, and two payment options (X-API-KEY or x402). This is strong transparency around authentication and failure behavior, though it omits response format and rate limits.

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 a single, well-structured sentence. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by compact payment details. Every clause adds value, and there is no filler or redundant content.

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?

Payment and authentication details are thoroughly covered, which is critical for a paid endpoint. However, there is no output schema and the description does not explain what the radar signal actually returns (e.g., a list of tickers, scores, timestamps). For a first-time caller, the output shape remains undefined, making the description complete on cost but incomplete on results.

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 input schema has zero formal parameters and allows arbitrary additional properties. The schema description itself directs users to the instruments tool for endpoint-specific parameter documentation. The tool description adds no parameter information, but with 0 parameters the baseline of 4 applies and there is no misinformation.

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 opens with 'Pre-IPO / new-listing radar signal', clearly identifying the tool as a signal for pre-IPO and new listings. This distinguishes it from sibling signal_* tools targeting other asset classes (e.g., signal_equities, signal_futures). The phrasing is a noun rather than an explicit verb, but the intent is unmistakable.

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 provides operational context like cost, payment methods, and the 402 response for uncredentialed calls. It also references the instruments tool for parameter docs, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over sibling signals or provide exclusion criteria. Usage timing is implied by the name rather than stated as guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the paid nature, cost per credit, required authentication, and the 402 payment envelope response for uncredentialed calls. It also specifies the endpoint path for out-of-band payment. While it does not describe a successful response, the key behavioral traits of payment and auth are well covered.

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 a single dense run-on sentence with parenthetical asides. While it packs critical information, it is not well-structured or front-loaded. The essential purpose ('Horse racing pick') appears first, but the rest is a cluttered string of pricing and auth details that could be formatted more clearly.

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 zero-parameter paid tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: payment, cost, auth failure behavior, and a pointer to parameter docs. It does not explain what the pick contains (e.g., race details, odds), but given the simplicity and the sibling tools, this is adequate.

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 has zero defined parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by directing users to the 'instruments' tool for per-endpoint parameter docs, acknowledging that additional arbitrary string parameters may be passed via additionalProperties. This compensates for the lack of explicit parameter details in the schema.

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 identifies the tool as providing a horse racing pick, which distinguishes it from other signal_* tools by sport. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', but the noun phrase 'Horse racing pick' is specific enough to convey the resource and action.

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 conveys when to use the tool: when a horse racing pick is needed and the caller is prepared to pay. It explicitly directs users to the free 'instruments' tool for parameter documentation, offering a clear alternative for discoverability. It does not mention exclusions like scan_racing, but the payment and auth requirements set clear usage context.

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

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the full transparency burden. It discloses the paid nature (1 signal credit, cost range), the 402 payment envelope for uncredentialed calls, and the underlying computation methodology (resolution-gauge data, climatology/forecast distribution comparison). This goes beyond typical descriptions, though it omits rate limits and output shape.

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 an unstructured run-on sentence mixing methodology, pricing, authentication, and endpoint details with semicolons and brackets. While the core purpose is front-loaded, the dense packaging makes it hard to scan, and the payment/auth information should be separated into clearer sentences.

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?

The description thoroughly explains the calculation logic and payment mechanics, but with no output schema and no mention of response format or data fields, an agent cannot fully predict what the tool returns. It also mentions only one parameter and defers other docs to the instruments tool, leaving gaps.

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 input schema has no concrete properties, only additionalProperties, providing no parameter documentation. The description compensates by specifying a real parameter ('?city=nyc') and indicating its narrowing effect. This gives agents a concrete anchor that the schema lacks, even though other parameters are left to the instruments tool.

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 identifies a specific resource (Polymarket monthly precipitation markets for 5 cities) and an analytical goal (finding best band-disjoint divergence), distinguishing it from siblings like signal_stormy. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists' and uses dense jargon that may obscure the core function for an unfamiliar agent.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as signal_stormy or scan_* tools. The only usage hint is '?city=nyc narrows', which is a parameter example rather than a contextual recommendation. Payment and authentication notes address access, not usage scenarios.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the tool is paid, costs a signal credit, and that uncredentialed calls return a 402 payment envelope. It also states how to authenticate (set X-API-KEY). However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what a successful response looks like, or any other behavioral traits such as rate limits or side effects.

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 a single sentence with a bracketed payment note, front-loading the purpose before diving into cost and auth details. It is reasonably concise given the need to explain payment, and every sentence provides relevant information. The structure is clear, though the payment info dominates the length.

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 paid tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description leaves significant gaps. It explains payment and authentication well, but does not describe what the 'signal' actually is, what the success response contains, or how to interpret the output. It also relies on the separate 'instruments' tool for parameter documentation, making the description incomplete on its own.

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 input schema has zero named parameters but allows additionalProperties as string, meaning arbitrary query parameters can be passed. The description mentions 'factor/regime screen' but does not specify any actual query parameter names, formats, or examples. It even defers to the 'instruments' tool for parameter docs, so this description adds little semantic value beyond the schema's generic additionalProperties.

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 identifies the resource as an 'Equity screener signal' and mentions 'factor/regime screen to a single call', which suggests it produces a trading signal from equity screening. However, the phrasing is vague and focused heavily on payment, making it unclear what the tool actually returns or does beyond being some kind of screened signal. Among many sibling signal_* tools, it is distinguishable by 'equity screener' but lacks a clear verb and explicit outcome.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions payment/authentication details (credit cost, X-API-KEY, 402 envelope) and does not compare with sibling scan_* or signal_* tools. There is no stated context like 'Use for factor-based equity screening' or 'Not for detailed scans'.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It excels here by clearly stating the paid nature, exact cost (1 signal credit, $1.70-$2.49), the failure mode for uncredentialed calls (402 payment envelope), and the two ways to authenticate (X-API-KEY or x402 out-of-band). This is substantial and directly actionable context.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then immediately follows with essential payment and setup details in a compact bracketed section. It is information-dense without being overly verbose, though the bracketed clause is a bit of a run-on and could be split into clearer sentences.

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?

The tool is simple (a paid sports pick endpoint) and lacks an output schema. The description covers the most critical context—payment, auth, endpoint, and parameter discovery. It does not describe the success response shape, but given the lack of output schema and the tool's name implying a pick, this is acceptable. The pointer to instruments fills the parameter documentation gap.

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 has 0 declared parameters but allows arbitrary query parameters via additionalProperties. The description adds value beyond the schema by directing users to the 'instruments' tool for per-endpoint parameter docs, which compensates for the schema's lack of specificity. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and this pointer maintains that.

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 identifies the tool as providing sports picks for 35+ sports worldwide, which distinguishes it from the more specific sibling tools like signal_f1 or signal_racing. It uses a clear resource descriptor ('sports pick') and scope ('35+ sports worldwide'), though it could be more explicit about the kind of output (e.g., predictions/betting odds).

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 usage when the user needs broad sports picks and has payment credentials, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it. It does provide a pointer to the 'instruments' tool for parameter docs, which is a useful meta-guideline, but no direct comparison to alternatives like signal_f1 or signal_racing.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses payment requirements, credential handling (X-API-KEY / x402), the 402 envelope behavior for uncredentialed calls, and the algorithmic approach. It adds substantial context beyond the empty schema, though return format is not described.

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 dense but front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by necessary payment and credential details in brackets. While verbose, every sentence provides useful context for a paid tool, making it appropriate in size.

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?

The description covers purpose, payment, and credentialing well, but lacks an explicit description of return values or output structure. Given the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema, this is a notable gap that leaves the agent uncertain about what to expect.

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 has 0 parameters, giving a baseline of 4. The description adds ?city=nyc as a narrowing example and points to the instruments tool for full parameter documentation, which compensates for the lack of schema-defined parameters.

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 it performs a Polymarket daily temperature scan across ~52 cities, using NOAA METAR and met.no distributions against bucket books. It is specific and distinguishes from siblings like signal_rainy by focusing on temperature and a unique divergence metric.

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 usage when a temperature signal is needed and mentions ?city=nyc to narrow scope, but it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives. Payment and credential requirements are included but do not guide tool selection among siblings.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose important auth/payment behavior: PAID, signal credit cost, uncredentialed calls return 402, and need for X-API-KEY or x402. It also mentions 'fills a real position at CLOB depth', which hints at position-filling, but it is ambiguous whether the tool itself executes trades or only identifies signals for filling. It does not state side effects, rate limits, or whether it is strictly read-only.

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 a single dense run-on sentence jammed with technical jargon and a parenthetical payment note. It lacks a front-loaded plain-language summary and structural separation, making it difficult to parse quickly. Although it contains valuable information, the lack of structure hurts readability and efficiency.

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 the tool's complexity, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not say what the tool returns (e.g., a list of signals, ticker data), how to interpret the results, or the operational meaning of 'finance-ladder'. It also omits any reference to the instruments tool for further help and contains a schema contradiction regarding the required class parameter.

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 declares zero parameters, but the description specifies '?class=commodities|stocks|crypto (required)', adding concrete semantic meaning beyond the empty schema. However, this directly contradicts the schema's 0 required parameters. The description doesn't document any other parameters, and the schema itself defers to an 'instruments' tool for parameter docs, leaving the parameter surface incomplete.

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 explicitly states 'Polymarket finance-ladder scan', which gives a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes this tool from siblings by the 'Ticker' name and cross-asset class parameter (commodities|stocks|crypto). However, the heavy reliance on domain jargon ('options-chain CDF', 'realized-vol lognormal band') makes the fundamental purpose less immediately clear to an agent unfamiliar with the domain.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like signal_screener or signal_equities. The description mentions the required 'class' parameter but does not state any decision rules, exclusions, or conditions for choosing it over siblings. The agent is left to infer usage purely from the domain-specific language.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the tool is paid, specifies the cost per signal credit, and explains the 402 payment envelope behavior for uncredentialed calls, including how to authenticate. However, it does not describe the response format or any potential side effects (though it is clearly a read-oriented data tool).

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 a single, dense paragraph that front-loads the purpose and then packs payment details, cost, and authentication into brackets. Every clause adds value, but it is somewhat run-on and could be more structured (e.g., separate lines for cost/auth). Overall, it is concise 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?

The description covers the essential context for a paid endpoint: cost, auth, and general functionality. However, since there is no output schema, it fails to describe what the response actually looks like (format, fields, etc.), leaving the agent uncertain about how to interpret the results. The pointer to 'instruments' partially mitigates this but does not fully compensate.

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?

There are zero defined parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The schema allows additional string parameters, and the schema description directs users to the 'instruments' tool for per-endpoint parameter docs, which adds useful context beyond the empty schema. Overall, the parameter aspect is adequately handled.

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 identifies this as a tokenization-trend radar for RWA listings/flows intelligence, which is specific and distinct from sibling tools. However, it lacks a strong action verb (e.g., 'retrieves' or 'lists') and does not explicitly differentiate from closely related tools like signal_tokenized.

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 usage for tokenization trend monitoring and provides payment/auth context, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or list exclusion criteria. The schema description points to the 'instruments' tool for parameter docs, which is a helpful pointer but not a complete usage guide.

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

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

Discloses paid access, exact cost, and that uncredentialed calls return a 402 payment envelope. However, it says nothing about successful response behavior, data contents, or limitations.

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?

Single sentence conveys necessary payment details but is cluttered with pricing and endpoint specifics, and it doesn't front-load the tool's functional purpose.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the signal's content and format, but it only covers payment mechanics. Lacks essential context for an agent to interpret the result.

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?

Input schema declares no explicit parameters and defers to the 'instruments' tool. The description adds no parameter detail, and with schema description coverage at 100%, baseline is 3.

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?

Description identifies the resource as 'Tokenized-asset (RWA) market signal' but uses a noun phrase without a verb, leaving the function implied. It distinguishes the asset class from siblings, but not the nature of the signal.

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?

Provides payment/credential setup instructions but no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling signal tools or what scenarios it fits.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It transparently states the tool is paid, the cost structure, the 402 response for uncredentialed calls, and how to authenticate using X-API-KEY or x402. This is thorough behavioral disclosure beyond what is typical.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes essential cost/authentication details. It is slightly overwhelming due to the density, but it contains no redundant information and earns its length.

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?

The description covers purpose, payment, and error behavior, but does not explain what the successful response contains nor the specific query parameters needed. It relies on the schema's pointer to instruments for parameter docs, which is an external dependency. Given no output schema, this leaves a gap in understanding the tool's return value.

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 input schema defines no formal parameters and uses additionalProperties, with the schema description pointing to the instruments tool for per-endpoint parameter docs. The tool description itself does not add parameter details, but with zero declared parameters, the baseline is high and the cross-reference is helpful.

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 identifies the tool as a jurisdiction-eligibility check for tokenized stocks and pre-IPO perps, using the verb 'check' and specifying the resource scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like signal_tokenized and signal_tokenization_radar.

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 provides context that this is a paid check for eligibility, implying it should be used when jurisdictional eligibility for tokenized/pre-IPO instruments is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it, and no alternative tools are named.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data scope ('last ~50 graded picks') and access requirements ('No auth, no payment'), which are key behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state safety or side-effect guarantees, which is a minor gap.

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 concise sentences, front-loading the main purpose ('FREE — the public verifiable track record') and then listing key contents. Every phrase adds value; no filler or repetition.

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 the tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It covers what data is returned and the access model. It does not specify the exact response format or potential limitations beyond 'last ~50', but that is likely acceptable for a simple data-retrieval tool.

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 has zero parameters and an empty schema, so there is no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline is 4 for no params, and the description does not need to add anything. It does not confuse by mentioning parameters.

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 what the tool provides: a public verifiable track record with graded picks, win rate, R-multiple ROI, calibration buckets, and last ~50 graded picks. It uses a specific resource ('track record') and lists concrete contents, distinguishing it from sibling tools like analysis or 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?

The description gives clear context: this is a free, public resource requiring no authentication. This implies when to use it (when you need public track record data without credentials) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Still, the 'no auth, no payment' note provides practical guidance.

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