signalpulse-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses important behavior: it is a paid tool, credits cost $1.00-$1.49, uncredentialed calls return a 402 payment envelope, and X-API-KEY must be set. This is useful operational context beyond what the schema provides.

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 one dense sentence and front-loads the purpose before the payment details. It is efficient and avoids filler, though it packs several billing, endpoint, and header details into a long clause that could be more readable with clearer sentence separation.

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?

Considering the tool has one simple parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is largely complete for selection and invocation: it covers purpose, payment, token/auth, failure behavior, and scope. Some example questions or expected output hints would make it stronger, but they are not necessary for such a flexible NL 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 schema has only one parameter, 'question', and the schema description already says it accepts natural-language questions about markets. The tool description reinforces this and adds payment context, but it does not add format examples, constraints, or additional semantic detail beyond the high schema 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 identifies the tool as a natural-language market analysis endpoint covering any instrument, sport, race, or prediction market. This is reasonably clear and distinguishes it from the structured scan/signal/quote siblings, though the tool name 'analysis' is generic and there is no explicit verb like 'answer' or 'return'.

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: ask any natural-language question about markets. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this instead of sibling scan/signal/quote tools, nor does it list exclusions. The 'any question' framing gives context, but a clearer comparison to specialized siblings would improve it.

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 discloses detailed behavioral traits: no-look-ahead fills, costs, walk-forward split, Monte Carlo bands, overfit warnings, asset classes, time frames, payment requirements, and the 402 response for uncredentialed calls. Missing only are specifics about the output format or response structure, but the level of disclosure is high.

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 core purpose and then lists features, assets, cost, and payment flow. While packed with value, it could be more readable with bullet points or separation of fee info. Every sentence is earned, but the density slightly reduces clarity.

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 tool with 0 shown parameters, no output schema, and complex simulation behavior, the description covers usage domain, constraints, and payment model well. However, it lacks any description of what the tool returns (output format, success/error indicators), which is a notable gap for a complete context. The instruction to use the 'instruments' tool for parameters is helpful but partially shifts the burden.

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 properties with additionalProperties (string) and directs to the 'instruments' tool for parameter docs. The description adds no information about actual parameters—neither names, types, nor purposes. Schema coverage is technically 100% (no fixed params), but the description fails to add meaning beyond the schema; it punts responsibility entirely.

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 does backtesting: 'plain-English trading rule compiled to an explicit spec and simulated honestly' across equities/FX/crypto and prediction markets. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from all sibling tools (e.g., scan_*, signal_*, analysis) which focus on scanning, signals, or analysis rather than full historical simulation.

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: use for backtesting strategies. However, the description provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like analysis or track_record. It mentions it is paid and directs users to the free 'instruments' tool for parameter docs, but does not specify when to choose backtest vs other tools for different tasks.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly discloses the paid nature, exact cost, authentication expectations, and the 402 payment-envelope behavior for uncredentialed calls. However, it does not describe the successful response shape or potential side effects beyond 'answered.'

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 front-loads the core purpose in the first clause and then packs payment, auth, and error behavior into a compact bracket. It is dense but not wasteful; every sentence serves a purpose, though the payment details add noticeable 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 simple free-text tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description covers the essential context: purpose, usage, pricing, authentication, failure mode, and a pointer to parameter docs. It lacks an explicit description of the return value/answer format, but the 'answered' wording implies an unstructured response.

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?

With zero formal parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds semantic context by calling it 'free-text,' implying a natural-language query input, and the schema description directs users to the 'instruments' tool for per-endpoint parameter docs. No parameter names are given, but with no structured params this is reasonable.

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 'Free-text front door — any sports/markets question, routed + answered,' which clearly identifies this as a natural-language catch-all ask tool. It distinguishes itself from the structured scan_* and signal_* sibling tools by positioning it as the general entry point for arbitrary questions.

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 'Free-text front door' gives clear context that this is the right tool for open-ended questions rather than structured, domain-specific scans. It also points users to the 'instruments' tool for parameter documentation, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool.

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 (1 signal credit or x402 USDC), specifies the cost range, explains the 402 payment envelope for uncredentialed calls, and describes how to configure X-API-KEY or pay out-of-band. It also mentions session-eligibility awareness and the style parameter, adding valuable behavioral 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 front-loads the core purpose in one dense clause, then compacts payment and authentication details into a bracketed tail. Every piece of information is relevant and there is no fluff, though the single long sentence could be slightly better structured for parseability.

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 moderately complex: paid, requires credentials, supports multiple styles, and scans a specific asset group. The description covers purpose, asset scope, style options, payment costs, credential methods, and the exact endpoint. The only notable gap is the absence of output/return format details, but with no output schema and a pointer to docs, the definition is largely complete for selecting and invoking the 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 schema has zero defined properties, so the description and schema-level hint to call the 'instruments' tool are the only parameter guidance. The main description adds the 'style=scalp|intraday|longterm' parameter with its allowed values and points to free per-endpoint docs. With zero declared parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description adds meaningful value beyond the empty 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 explicitly identifies a scanner for 13 commodities/metals/indices CFDs grouped together, with a style parameter. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling scanner tools like scan_crypto, scan_forex, and scan_futures by naming the exact asset class and scope.

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 asset-class scoping ('13 commodities/metals/indices CFDs') makes it evident when this tool is relevant, and the paid/auth constraints signal it should be used only with appropriate credentials or payment intent. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough.

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?

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the paid nature, cost structure, credential requirement, and the 402 payment-envelope behavior for uncredentialed calls—non-obvious operational details. It does not describe return format or pagination, but that is not heavily problematic given there is no output schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence but front-loads the core purpose before the paid/payment caveat. The pricing and auth details are useful and earn their place, though the nested bracket/parenthesis structure makes it 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?

For a paid tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the most important non-obvious conditions: cost, credit pricing, authentication setup, and failure mode. The schema's pointer to the instruments tool covers parameter discovery. It would be stronger if it described the result/ranking shape, but current coverage 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?

There are 0 declared parameters, and the schema uses additionalProperties, so the baseline is 4. The description adds the key semantic that the tool compares '2+ named players,' and the schema itself already directs users to the instruments tool for per-endpoint 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 states a specific action and resource: 'Compare & rank 2+ named players.' The '2+' scope and the explicit 'players' target clearly differentiate it from the many single-asset and signal-based sibling tools, even without naming an alternative.

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 intended use case is clear: multi-player comparison/ranking. The description also covers key usage conditions such as payment cost, signal-credit pricing range, and that missing credentials trigger a 402 envelope. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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

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 paid, requires authentication, and returns a 402 payment envelope for uncredentialed calls. It does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, but the nature of a scanner implies it. It also explains payment methods, which is valuable beyond a simple 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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the purpose and features, then adding payment and auth details. Every sentence provides necessary information with no filler. The structure is efficient and easy to scan.

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, authentication, and parameter documentation sources. However, it does not mention the expected output format or data structure, which could be important for an agent to interpret results. Given no output schema exists, this omission leaves a gap. Still, for a scanner with no defined parameters, it is 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?

The schema has zero defined parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty). The description adds meaning by directing users to the 'instruments' tool for per-endpoint parameter documentation, which compensates for the lack of parameter details. It does not describe any specific parameters, but given there are none, this is acceptable and useful.

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's a crypto scanner with specific features (dynamic Top-25 by market cap, ETF flows, funding, on-chain, GEX). The verb 'scanner' and resource 'crypto' make the purpose obvious, and the listed features distinguish it from sibling tools, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 provides clear payment/authentication usage context (uncredentialed calls return 402, set X-API-KEY, pay via x402). It also directs users to the 'instruments' tool for parameter docs. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like scan_crypto_lite, leaving that comparison 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, the description carries the full transparency burden and succeeds remarkably. It discloses deterministic behavior, absence of LLM, exact cost, payment methods, and the 402 envelope for uncredentialed calls. This gives the agent a complete picture of what to expect beyond the schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, dense run-on sentence packed with payment details, endpoint information, and cost breakdowns. While every piece of information is useful, the lack of structure (e.g., separate sentences or sections) makes it somewhat cluttered. It could be more readable with clearer segmentation.

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?

Despite no output schema and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context for a simple, parameterless snapshot tool. It covers cost, auth, endpoint, and behavioral traits. It does not describe the return structure, but for a 'lite tick' of known asset prices and fear & greed, this is likely 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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not add parameter-level semantics, but the schema itself points to the 'instruments' tool for parameter docs, which is unnecessary here. Since there are no params to explain, the baseline score 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 states the tool provides a 'Lite tick' with a 'deterministic BTC/ETH/SOL snapshot + fear & greed' and explicitly notes 'no LLM', distinguishing it from the full scan_crypto sibling. The verb+resource specification is specific and the tool's scoped functionality is immediately apparent.

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 indirectly signals usage context by referencing 'funnel to scan/crypto' and providing cost comparisons and payment requirements, which implies it is the cheaper, lighter alternative. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance, so it does not fully qualify as 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?

Description discloses the paid nature, cost structure, and requires X-API-KEY, and behavior for uncredentialed calls. No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden and does well, but could add more about response 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?

Single sentence packed with information: purpose, paid requirement, cost, auth, and fallback behavior. Slight overpacking but efficient and front-loaded.

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, description covers essential operational aspects: cost, auth, and error condition. However, lacks what the response looks like or example usage. For a tool with zero params and one of many scan_ siblings, it is 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?

Schema has 0 parameters and 100% coverage, so description need not explain parameters. It does mention using the free 'instruments' tool for parameter docs, but since the schema is additionalProperties string, it adds no specific parameter info. Baseline 3 for schema covering 100%.

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 scans economic-event reactions — release surprise → market reaction playbook. Distinguishes itself from other scan_ tools by specific purpose. Focus is on economic events, not general market 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?

Implies when to use (economic-event reaction scanning) and mentions payment requirement, but does not explicitly compare with alternatives like signal_macro or signal_gaia which might overlap. No 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 provided, the description carries the burden and does substantial work: it discloses that calls are paid, costs are variable by pack size, uncredentialed calls receive a 402 payment envelope, and authentication can be done via X-API-KEY or out-of-band x402. It does not cover rate limits or response shape, but the payment/auth/failure behavior is well disclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and efficient with every clause serving a purpose. The payment/auth details are packed into one long parenthetical sentence, making it somewhat dense, but there is no wasted 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 paid tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, how to pay, how to authenticate, what happens on failure, and where to find parameter documentation. It does not describe the return shape or rate limits, but it is reasonably complete for the tool's apparent 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 schema has zero named parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful parameter hints such as contest=gpp|cash, slate override, and book=dk, and directs users to the instruments tool for per-endpoint parameter docs, providing more insight than the otherwise empty 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?

States a specific action ('Direct fantasy advice') on a specific resource ('fantasy'), and lists concrete subdomains: start/sit, DFS lineup, waivers, trades. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling market-focused scan tools like scan_crypto, scan_forex, and scan_golf.

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 usage context (fantasy advice domain) and operational prerequisites such as payment, X-API-KEY setup, and the pointer to the free instruments tool for parameter docs. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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 weight and provides substantial details: the tool is paid, costs 1 credit or x402 USDC, unauthenticated calls return a 402, and API key setup is explained. This goes beyond minimal transparency, though it doesn't cover every behavioral aspect like error handling or 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 uses a concise lead-in ('FX scanner, 28 pairs') followed by bracketed payment/auth details, keeping the most relevant info first. While a bit long, the structure is logical and each 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?

The tool is relatively simple (no schema-defined parameters, no output schema), and the description covers payment, auth, and a key parameter. However, it lacks any note on the response shape or typical usage example, leaving room for minor uncertainty.

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 parameters (additionalProperties allowed), and the description introduces the 'style' parameter with allowed values, adding value over the schema. It also directs to the instruments tool for parameter docs. Yet, it doesn't list all possible query params, so it's not comprehensive.

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 'FX scanner, 28 pairs' and lists a 'style' parameter with possible values, indicating the tool scans forex pairs. However, it doesn't specify the output nature (e.g., signals, opportunities), so it stops short of a 5.

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 through naming ('forex') and the mention of 'call the free instruments tool for per-endpoint parameter docs' provides some guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling scan_ tools or state when to prefer this tool, so guidance is only partially explicit.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that uncredentialed calls return a 402 payment envelope, which is a key behavioral trait. It also explains the payment flow (signal credit or x402 USDC) and the location of the API endpoint, exceeding the baseline by explicitly warning about potential failed calls and cost implications.

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 somewhat long, wrapping key payment details inline with behavior. While all information is useful, the block of bracket-enclosed text is dense. It could be broken down for readability, but it remains directly relevant and non-repetitive.

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 (0 defined parameters, no output schema), the description covers critical context: cost, auth failure behavior, and pointer for parameter docs. It doesn't explain return value structure, but with no output schema and permissive params, the description is fairly complete for an agent, though it could hint at the response shape.

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 parameter schema is permissive (additionalProperties: string) with no defined properties. The description references GET /api/scan/futures and points to an "instruments" tool for parameter docs, which is the only way to learn about parameters. Since no parameters are defined in the schema, the description's pointer to external documentation is the only semantic signal, compensating for the schema's lack of detail.

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 scans futures by category and lists the specific categories (index/energy/metals/ags/rates). It differentiates itself from siblings by focusing exclusively on futures scan, which is distinct from the many other scan_ and 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 explicitly states the paid nature, the cost, and payment methods. It also explains the behavior for uncredentialed calls (returns 402 payment envelope) and instructs how to authenticate (set X-API-KEY or pay x402), which serves as essential when-to-use guidance for the agent.

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 largely delivers: it discloses the 1-credit cost, the 402 payment envelope for uncredentialed calls, and both authentication routes (X-API-KEY on the MCP connection or x402 out-of-band). This is genuinely useful operational behavior that goes well beyond what a generic read/write hint would convey. It lacks details on rate limits, but the auth and cost transparency 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 core sentence is front-loaded and information-dense, with cost and authentication details efficiently bracketed off. Every clause earns its place. It is only slightly penalized for the telegraphic grammar and dense bracket text, which could be destructured without losing meaning.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential decision-making context: what is returned (3 ranked +EV plays), the cost, and the necessary authentication. A brief note on the result shape or what 'deep analysis' includes would round it out, but given the low complexity this is well covered.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool exposes 0 parameters, earning the baseline of 4 per the rubric. The schema description adds value by directing callers to the 'instruments' tool for per-endpoint parameter docs, which helps mitigate the openness of the additionalProperties bag, even though the main description itself contributes nothing about 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—'Deep single-match analysis'—and its output of '3 ranked +EV plays,' which distinguishes it within the large sibling set. However, it is grammatically telegraphic and never explicitly names what differentiates it from plausible siblings like 'scan_compare' or 'scan_h2h,' coming just short of a 5.

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 versus its alternative siblings, despite 50+ scan_*/signal_* siblings. The schema description points to the 'instruments' tool but only for parameter documentation, not for usage selection. No exclusions, preconditions, or when-to-use guidance is 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?

The description transparently discloses the payment mechanism, cost, and authentication requirements (X-API-KEY, 402 responses). However, it omits other behavioral aspects like rate limits, success response format, or error handling beyond the 402 case.

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 concise but somewhat cluttered with payment details embedded in brackets and multiple currencies (signal credit, USDC). It could be restructured for clarity, but it remains under 50 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?

The description does not explain what the scan returns (e.g., data format, fields, or purpose), and lacks context about the 'signal credit' system. Since there is no output schema, the description should have provided more information about expected 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 parameters, so there is nothing to describe. The baseline score for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not introduce any parameter-related confusion.

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 'whole-field golf scan across every bet type', which is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling scan tools (e.g., scan_crypto, scan_futures). It explicitly mentions 'golf' and 'every bet type', leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 provide guidance on when to use this tool instead of the many other scan_* alternatives. It only describes what it does without context about typical use cases or differentiating factors beyond the sport.

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?

Given no annotations, the description carries the burden. It explicitly discloses the paid nature, pricing details, that uncredentialed calls return a 402 payment envelope, and how to authenticate (X-API-KEY or x402 out-of-band). It also mentions an alternative route for parameter docs via the instruments tool, which adds 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 somewhat verbose with pricing specifics, but the structure is clear: the core purpose is front-loaded with a dash, and payment/authentication details are enclosed in brackets. It's not wasteful, though it could be trimmed.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete for an agent to use effectively. It doesn't describe the return format, typical response fields, or how to construct valid query parameters. It relies entirely on external docs, making the tool under-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 schema has zero defined properties (only additionalProperties of type string), and the description merely directs users to the instruments tool for parameter documentation. This adds no direct meaning about what parameters are needed or their formats, forcing an extra lookup step.

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 'Player head-to-head — betting + fantasy verdict', which clearly identifies the resource (player head-to-head) and the output (betting + fantasy verdict). It is specific and distinct from sibling scan_* tools, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from scan_compare or scan_player.

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 explains payment requirements and how to handle authentication, not the use case context or exclusions when other scan tools would be more appropriate.

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 adds crucial behavioral details: it is a paid tool requiring signal credits or x402 USDC, and uncredentialed calls return a 402 payment envelope. It also instructs on authentication (X-API-KEY) and out-of-band payment, exceeding what annotations would typically 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, information-rich sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes necessary payment/auth details in brackets. While longer than minimal examples, every component adds value and it is well-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?

Given the tool's nature as a GET scanner with open query parameters, the description covers asset scope, style parameter, cost, and authentication. It does not specify output format, but no output schema exists, and the schema description points to the 'instruments' tool for further parameter docs, which is a helpful pointer.

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 open (additionalProperties string) with no defined params, but the description introduces the 'style' parameter and its allowed values (scalp|intraday|longterm). This adds meaning beyond the empty schema, though it does not elaborate on other potential query 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 scans the market across 42 instruments (FX, metals, indices, crypto CFDs) and supports a style parameter (scalp, intraday, longterm). This distinguishes it from siblings like scan_forex or scan_crypto by explicitly being cross-asset.

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: use when a cross-asset scan is needed, as it covers multiple instrument types. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the cross-asset nature is a clear differentiator from asset-specific 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 provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses payment requirements, cost, and the uncredentialed behavior (402 payment envelope). It also explains how to authenticate (X-API-KEY) or pay out-of-band. However, it does not mention behavior like rate limits, required permissions, or what happens after payment. The description adds valuable context about the payment gating, but lacks detail on other behavioral aspects.

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 paragraph that packs in a lot of information: purpose, payment, cost, authentication, and endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, but the payment details and cost breakdowns make it dense and less scannable. It could be restructured into two sentences: one for purpose, one for payment notes. Still, it contains no fluff and each clause carries information.

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 is complex (paid, requires authentication), the description covers payment and authentication but omits other crucial context like what input parameters are needed (though it defers to the instruments tool), what output format to expect (no output schema), and any usage limits. The description is reasonably complete for awareness of the payment gating but incomplete for the operational details needed to invoke it 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 explicit parameters and allows arbitrary string query parameters, with a note that the 'instruments' tool provides parameter docs. The description itself mentions no parameter details. However, with 0 explicit params and the schema indicating additionalProperties, the description is not expected to detail params. It points users to the free 'instruments' tool for parameter documentation, which is helpful guidance. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds value by referencing 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 states the tool provides a single-player stat-projected outlook, covering props and fantasy projections. It distinguishes itself from the many sibling tools by focusing on a specific player (not market/event/coverage comparisons). However, the purpose could be more explicit about what specific data is returned beyond projections, and the 'PAID' warning somewhat obscures the core function description.

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 explicitly say when to use this tool vs alternatives. It only mentions payment requirements and how to pay or provide credentials, but does not state context like 'use when you need player-specific stats for a single player as opposed to scan_compare or quote'. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are given, even though a large sibling list exists.

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, cost per credit, the 402 payment envelope for uncredentialed calls, and the need to set X-API-KEY or pay x402 out-of-band. This gives agents critical behavioral information beyond what the schema provides, though it omits details about rate limits or response 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 description is a single dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and then provides essential payment/auth details. While the URL and cost range add length, they are operationally relevant. No filler words or redundant information; it is efficient though slightly heavy with pricing specifics.

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 adequately covers purpose, cost, auth, and points to instruments for parameter docs, which is good for a paid scan endpoint. However, with no output schema and no explanation of what the 'superforecaster scan' returns (e.g., opportunities, odds, confidence scores), agents are left guessing about the response shape. This is a meaningful 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 0 documented parameters, so baseline is 4 per the rubric. The schema description itself points to the free 'instruments' tool for per-endpoint parameter documentation, which compensates for the lack of explicit parameters. The main tool description adds no parameter-level detail, but that is acceptable given there are no params 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 specific action and resource: 'Prediction-market superforecaster scan' over Polymarket/Manifold/PredictIt. This distinguishes it from sibling scan tools like scan_crypto and scan_forex, and from signal_polymarket. The verb 'scan' plus the named platforms make the scope 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 prediction-market scanning as the use case and gives clear payment prerequisites, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as signal_polymarket or other scan_* tools. No alternative tools are named and no exclusion criteria are provided.

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 paid, costs 1 signal credit ($1.70-$2.49), requires an X-API-KEY or x402 payment, and returns a 402 envelope on uncredentialed calls. This adds valuable behavioral context beyond the name and schema, though it doesn't cover all potential edge cases (e.g., success response 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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then adds cost and authorization details. No wasted words; it efficiently conveys all necessary information in one line.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides enough context for an agent to understand the tool's function, pricing, and failure mode. It could be slightly more explicit about what a successful response contains (e.g., 'returns the selected horse and EV'), but it's not critically incomplete for a tool of this simplicity.

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 baseline is 4. The description doesn't mention any parameters, but none are required. The schema itself suggests additional query parameters can be passed, but the tool description doesn't need to elaborate on nonexistent params. It provides no redundancy or contradiction.

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's a 'GB/IRE horse-racing card scan' for 'highest-EV selection,' using a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like scan_crypto or scan_forex. It specifically identifies the market (GB/IRE horse racing) and the function (scan for highest-EV pick).

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 on when to use it (for GB/IRE horse racing) and includes payment instructions, cost details, and the consequence of uncredentialed calls (402 error). It doesn't explicitly exclude other tools, but the market-specific purpose implies when it should be chosen over 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 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?

The description provides rich operational transparency for a paid endpoint: cost in credits and USD, the 402 payment-envelope behavior, and two auth paths (X-API-KEY on the MCP connection or x402 out-of-band). Since no annotations are present, this information is genuinely valuable and exceeds what structured fields would have offered. The only gap is that core runtime semantics ('running count', 'empirical posting distribution') remain weakly explained, but the cost/auth/error disclosures are exemplary.

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 information-dense and covers a wide surface area (semantics, pricing, auth, error behavior) in a compact space, but it reads as one long run-on of em-dash-laden clauses with no sentence or paragraph breaks. Pricing details ('$1.70-$2.49/credit by pack size') could arguably be trimmed or moved, and the dense structure makes parsing harder than necessary. Every sentence earns partial keep, but the lack of structural signposting hurts scannability.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description covers the most mission-critical contexts: payment flow, auth, error handling, and a concrete example. It also acknowledges a dependency path for more param docs. However, return-value shape is never described (no output schema, and the description doesn't compensate), and the core semantics are still uncertain without external domain knowledge, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

With 0 schema parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description does document the ?handle= query parameter ('?handle=elonmusk narrows'), adding real usage semantics. The schema defers all parameter documentation to a separate 'instruments' tool, which shifts burden, but the description's example with the handle parameter partially compensates. Slight deduction for relying on an offloading reference rather than documenting the parameter shape directly.

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 attempts to define the tool ('Polymarket weekly tweet-count bin scan') with specific, domain-specific detail, and clearly distinguishes it from a bare tautology. However, it lacks a clear verb+object structure, and phrases like 'best band-disjoint divergence' are nearly impenetrable, leaving the central purpose murky even to a semi-informed reader. It's specific in intent but the clarity is compromised by dense, unexplained quant jargon.

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 useful operational guidance: the tool is paid, auth is via X-API-KEY or x402, and uncredentialed calls return a 402 envelope. However, given ~45 scan_/signal_ siblings (e.g., signal_polymarket, scan_compare), there is no explicit instruction on when to choose this tool over alternatives, and no exclusions are stated. Usage context is implied via pricing and auth details rather than explicitly framed as 'use when...'.

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 not provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses payment requirements and the 402 envelope behavior, which is a key behavioral trait. It does not describe response format or what happens after payment, but the payment-related behavior is a valuable disclosure. For a paid tool, this is helpful but not exhaustive.

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 paragraph with dense information about payment, cost, and error handling. It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose and payment requirement. Slightly long but every sentence adds context about payment and authentication. No wasted words, but could be split into bullet points for readability, though it's acceptable.

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?

This is a paid API with 0 parameters and no output schema. The description provides critical payment and error-handling context, which is essential. However, it does not explain what a successful response looks like or how the signal is structured, which could be inferred from 'signal' but is not explicit. Given the tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description is largely complete but could benefit from a note on what to expect on 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?

Schema coverage is 100% but there are 0 parameters. The description references the 'instruments' tool for parameter docs via additionalProperties, which effectively explains that parameters are allowed but undocumented here. This is a reasonable delegation since the schema itself is unclear but the description provides a path to discover parameters. It adds value beyond the schema by pointing 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 identifies the tool as 'Thematic-basket / sector-ETF signal' and mentions it is a paid signal. It is distinct from siblings like signal_equities or signal_ticker by specifying thematic-basket/sector-ETF focus. It does not explicitly say 'get' or 'retrieve', but the intent is 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?

The description explicitly states payment requirement and how to handle uncredentialed calls (returns 402 envelope, set X-API-KEY or pay x402 out-of-band). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but the payment context and endpoint reference provide meaningful usage guidance. It could be stronger with a direct 'use this when...' but the context is clear.

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 proactively discloses payment requirements (signal credit or x402 USDC), cost range, authentication needs (X-API-KEY), and the 402 payment envelope for uncredentialed calls. This goes beyond typical read-only tools and covers critical operational behavior, though it does not detail the 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 dense single sentence but efficiently packs essential details: strategy, scope, payment, auth, and endpoint. It is front-loaded with 'Coin Flipper' and immediately clarifies the actual function. While verbose, every segment serves a purpose, though it could be restructured 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, the description should clarify what the tool returns. It describes the scan inputs and methodology but omits what the response contains (e.g., list of signals, prices, probabilities). It also relies on 'instruments' for parameter docs, shifting documentation burden. The payment and authentication details are covered, but the output contract is vague, making the description incomplete for a complex paid signal 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 schema has zero defined properties, but the description explicitly mentions a 'class' parameter with values 'fx|equity', adding meaning beyond the empty schema. It also directs users to the 'instruments' tool for endpoint parameter docs, which supplements the schema. For a 0-parameter baseline of 4, the added class guidance justifies a 5.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb+resource: 'Coin Flipper' scanning Polymarket daily Up/Down across FX pairs and equities, with a distinct methodology (fair-value band vs venue book, interval-disjoint divergence). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like signal_equities or scan_forex by naming the strategy and scope.

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 (daily Up/Down signals on FX/equities) and even mentions a filter (?class=fx|equity) to narrow scope. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the specific coverage and strategy imply its niche, making usage context clear without an explicit when-not list.

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 thoroughly discloses payment requirements (signal credit or x402 USDC), the 402 payment envelope for uncredentialed calls, and authentication methods (X-API-KEY or out-of-band). This is strong behavioral transparency beyond typical 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?

A single dense sentence packs in purpose, payment, auth, and a pointer to docs. No fluff, though the parenthetical makes it a bit long. Front-loaded with the core 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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers payment/auth/gating well. However, it doesn't describe what the returned signal contains or any expected response structure. It points to instruments for params but not for output format, leaving the agent somewhat in the dark.

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 formal parameters but describes additionalProperties as strings. The description doesn't explain parameters but directs users to the 'instruments' tool for per-endpoint docs. This is helpful guidance but not actual parameter semantics within the description itself.

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 'equities signal' and differentiates it from sibling signal_* tools by the asset class. However, the phrase 'signal-type gating' is vague and doesn't specify what the signal actually returns beyond being an equities 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies equities signal use but doesn't mention exclusions or typical scenarios. Points to 'instruments' for parameter docs, but that's not usage direction.

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 behavioral disclosure burden. It meaningfully discloses the paid nature, exact cost, the 402 payment envelope for uncredentialed calls, and the two auth paths (X-API-KEY or x402). It does not describe response shape or rate limits, but for a paid read-style scanner, the payment/auth behavior is the most important 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 one dense, front-loaded sentence, with the key purpose stated first and the critical billing/auth details in a clear parenthetical. It is not wasteful, but the pricing/payment chain is bundled into a long parenthetical that could be slightly better 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-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is unusually complete: it explains what data is covered, how to access the same data via an alternate route, payment requirements, cost, failure behavior, and authentication setup. It also delegates parameter documentation to the instruments tool rather than leaving the caller guessing.

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 description goes beyond that by naming the semantic field categories (winner, podium, top-N, H2H, constructor, quali) that a caller would likely pass as query parameters. It also points to the instruments tool for per-endpoint parameter docs, which helps compensate for the open-ended additionalProperties 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 uses a specific verb phrase 'F1 race-weekend field scan' and enumerates the exact data categories: winner/podium/top-N/H2H/constructor/quali. It clearly distinguishes this from the many sibling scan/signal tools by naming the sport and noting the alternative route via signal/sports?sport=f1.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description makes clear when to use the tool: for F1 race-weekend field scans, and it additionally names the alternate endpoint via signal/sports. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternatives like other sport-specific signal tools, so it gets a 4 rather than 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?

The description discloses the payment requirement and the 402 error for uncredentialed calls, which is a behavioral trait. However, other aspects like the meaning of 'honest 409 pre-season/rollover' remain cryptic, reducing overall 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 overly verbose, including repeated pricing information and confusing phrases like 'verdict-gated, sprint-205'. It lacks concise, structured presentation.

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 apparent complexity, the description does not adequately explain what data or recommendations are provided, nor the output format. It focuses more on payment details than on functional 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 input schema has no parameters, so the description adds nothing about parameters. Since the schema is empty, the baseline score of 3 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 is vague and marketing-like, listing features such as 'captaincy calls' and 'transfer scans' without a clear verb or resource. It does not explicitly state what the tool returns or its primary function.

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 other signal tools. The description focuses on pricing and error codes rather than selection criteria or 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 burden. It transparently discloses that the tool is paid (signal credit or x402 USDC), the cost range, and that uncredentialed calls return a 402 payment envelope with instructions to set X-API-KEY or pay out-of-band. However, it doesn't disclose the response format, success behavior, or any side effects beyond payment. Partial transparency 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 sentence but packs a lot of information: the market, payment model, authentication method, and out-of-band fallback. It is front-loaded with the purpose but lacks clear structure (e.g., separate sentences for usage and payment). It's not overly verbose, but it could be more organized 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 tool is a paid API call with no output schema, requiring authentication and having an unknown parameter set. The description covers payment and auth but fails to describe what the signal response contains, the meaning of 'category', or any limits. The lack of output format and parameter details makes it incomplete for an agent to effectively use the 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 input schema has zero properties but allows additionalProperties as strings, and its description points users to the 'instruments' tool for parameter docs. The tool description itself only says 'by category' without specifying what category parameters to pass. It adds no meaningful parameter guidance, leaving the agent to seek external help. The schema coverage is effectively absent for actual 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 states 'Futures signal by category' which identifies the market (futures) but lacks a clear verb or resource. It doesn't explicitly say 'Get' or 'Retrieve' a signal, and the 'by category' part is ambiguous without defining categories. The name and phrase distinguish it from other signal_* tools, but purpose remains vague.

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 implicitly indicates it's for futures signals, but no explicit guidance on when to use it versus other signal tools (e.g., signal_perps, signal_equities). It does mention payment requirements, which is a practical consideration, but doesn't state exclusions or alternatives. The context is clear enough from the name but not elaborated.

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 important behavioral traits: it is a PAID tool (1 signal credit, $1.70-$2.49/credit), requires authentication (X-API-KEY or x402), and uncredentialed calls return a 402 payment envelope. These details go beyond the lack of annotations and inform the user about costs and error handling.

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 verbose and poorly structured, mixing purpose, parameter hints, pricing, and authentication in a run-on sentence with repeated information (e.g., the bracket repeats the paid/auth details). It is not front-loaded with the most critical info, and the redundancy detracts from clarity.

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 empty schema and no output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview of the tool's function and a single parameter hint, but it lacks full parameter documentation and expected output details. It explicitly redirects to another tool for parameter docs, so it is not fully self-contained.

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 no defined parameters (only additionalProperties), and the description provides a single parameter hint (?family=quake_count narrows). While this adds some value, it does not fully compensate for the empty schema; the description itself points to the 'instruments' tool for parameter docs, indicating incomplete parameter semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose as a Polymarket climate/severe/geo scan, listing specific data types (hottest-year rank, Arctic sea-ice min, earthquakes, tornadoes, bolides, VEI-6, hurricane landfalls) and its function of comparing official-catalog floors and base-rate bands to find the best divergence across books. This distinguishes it 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?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It provides a parameter hint (?family=quake_count) and mentions that the 'instruments' tool has per-endpoint docs, but no clear guidance on selection criteria. The domain context (climate/severe/geo) is implicit but not framed as a usage directive.

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 provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is paid, the cost structure, that uncredentialed calls return a 402 payment envelope, and how to authenticate (X-API-KEY or out-of-band x402). This covers the main side effect (payment) and auth requirements, but doesn't specify output format or success 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 description is a single dense sentence but front-loaded with the core purpose. It packs cost and auth details efficiently, though the brackets and inline payment info make it slightly dense. No wasted words, but could benefit from clearer segmentation.

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, auth-dependent, generic), the description covers essential operational aspects: cost, authentication, and pointer to docs. However, with no output schema, it doesn't describe what the returned signal looks like, which is a minor gap given the tool's purpose. Overall, it is adequately complete for an agent to invoke 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 0 defined properties but accepts arbitrary strings (additionalProperties). With 0 params, baseline is 4. The description adds value by directing users to the free 'instruments' tool for per-endpoint parameter documentation, compensating for the lack of explicit parameter definitions.

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 'On-demand signal for any instrument' with a specific verb 'generate' implied and resource 'any instrument'. This distinguishes it from the many sibling signal_* tools that target specific markets or event types, as it is generic and on-demand.

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 that this tool is for generic instruments and is paid, and points to the 'instruments' tool for parameter docs. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this instead of more specialized signal tools, though 'any instrument' implies a fallback/custom use case.

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 carries the behavioral burden. It discloses payment requirements ('1 signal credit ($1.70-$2.49/credit by pack size)'), auth options ('set X-API-KEY on the MCP connection or pay x402 out-of-band'), the uncredentialed 402 response, and the internal scan logic. This is substantial, honest behavioral detail.

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 semicolons, parentheses, and a large bracketed payment block. It is information-rich but poorly structured for quick parsing; splitting into concise sentences would improve readability without losing 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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers core purpose, a key parameter, and essential payment/auth behaviors. It does not describe the response shape, but the schema's suggestion to consult 'instruments' for parameter docs mitigates this 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 declares 0 formal parameters and only generic additionalProperties, but the description documents a concrete '?family=cpi_yoy|unrate|us10y' parameter with its narrowing effect. This exceeds the baseline for 0-param schemas and adds real selection/invocation value.

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 'Macro — Polymarket econ-threshold ladder scan (CPI inflation / unemployment / 10y yield)' and explains the comparison logic (realized floor + trend-implied band vs every bucket book), making the tool's function explicit and clearly differentiating it from sibling scan_* and 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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The only usage hint is the optional '?family=cpi_yoy|unrate|us10y' narrowing parameter, plus a pointer to the 'instruments' tool in the schema description. The macro-econ scope implies context but does not state a decision rule.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the paid nature, cost, and authentication requirements (X-API-KEY or x402), and mentions that uncredentialed calls return a 402 payment envelope. However, it doesn't describe what happens on success (return format) or any rate limits, which are important for a paid API.

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 packs a lot of information: the tool's purpose, the sport parameter, and payment details. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, but the payment and authentication details are lengthy and could be separated for clarity. It's not overly verbose, but the structure could be improved.

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 access, multiple sports, authentication), the description covers the essential operational details: cost, payment method, and required parameter. However, it lacks information about the output format, success behavior, and any rate limits or quotas, which are important for a paid API. The pointer to the 'instruments' tool for parameter docs is helpful but incomplete.

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 a generic additionalProperties string, with schema description coverage at 100% (though it's just a pointer to the 'instruments' tool). The description compensates by listing the required sport parameter and its possible values (soccer, mlb, nfl, etc.), which is essential for invocation. It also mentions the ?sport= query parameter format, adding practical usage detail.

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 scans Polymarket per-sport moneyline markets against de-vigged sportsbook consensus, and lists supported sports. It distinguishes from siblings like signal_sports and signal_polymarket by specifying the per-sport moneyline focus and the required sport parameter, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 explicit usage context: it requires a sport parameter, mentions season-aware soccer, and explains the paid access model with cost and authentication requirements. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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 clearly states the tool is PAID, gives the exact cost in credits and USDC, explains that uncredentialed calls return a 402 payment envelope, and specifies how to authenticate (X-API-KEY or x402). It also reveals constraints like 'no invented probabilities' and 'venue numbers only', which are critical behavioral traits. Missing are error/limit details, but the core transparency 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 but information-rich, covering the purpose, strategies, constraint, tag usage, and payment/auth details in a single, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the core purpose before diving into cost and authentication. It avoids filler and earns its length given the tool's paid and authenticated nature.

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, requires auth, domain-specific strategies), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, how it works, the tag parameter, payment method, and auth flow. It does not describe the return format, but there is no output schema and the description points to 'instruments' for parameter docs, which partially compensates. Missing error handling and rate limits, but overall it is reasonably 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 an empty properties object with additionalProperties allowed, and its description points to the 'instruments' tool for docs. The tool description adds meaning by mentioning the specific query parameter '?tag=politics|geopolitics|elections' and its values, which is beyond what the schema provides. Since schema coverage is 100% (the schema description exists), a baseline of 3 applies, but the tag info raises it to 4.

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 'Polymarket politics/geopolitics/elections scan' which specifies the exact domain and action. It further details the two strategies ('depth-verified sum-arb on outcome ladders' or 'principal-wire event dislocations') and the core constraint ('no invented probabilities — venue numbers only'), clearly distinguishing it from the many sibling signal_* tools that target other asset classes or event types.

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 implicitly communicates when to use this tool (for politics/geopolitics/elections scanning) and even includes a query parameter (?tag=politics|geopolitics|elections) to narrow results. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools (e.g., signal_polymarket or other signal_* variants) for different domains, which would be helpful given the large sibling set.

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 nature, cost structure, and authentication requirements (X-API-KEY, 402 payment envelope). While no annotations exist, it describes key behavioral aspects like cost and auth, though it doesn't explicitly state side effects 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?

Description is compact but includes essential categories, cost, and auth info in a structured parenthetical and bracketed format. Slightly verbose due to repeated cost details, but overall 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?

Lacks explanation of output format or what 'value vs calibrated probability' means in practice. No mention of response structure or example outputs, leaving users uncertain about what they receive beyond a promise of scans.

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 is empty with additionalProperties string, providing no parameter definitions. Description offers no parameter details, only defers to the 'instruments' tool for docs, which does not add direct meaning to this tool's 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?

Description clearly states this is a prediction-market scanner for value vs calibrated probability, listing specific market categories. It distinguishes itself from sibling signal tools by focusing on Polymarket and its unique value 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other signal tools. It only mentions calling the 'instruments' tool for parameter docs, which is about parameter discovery, not usage scenarios or 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?

The description discloses that uncredentialed calls return a 402 payment envelope and explains the cost and payment options. This provides clear transparency about the tool's behavior, including its requirement for credentials or payment.

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 includes cost, credentials, and endpoint details without being overly verbose. It is well-structured despite the parentheses, maintaining conciseness.

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 does not specify what the signal data contains or its format, and there is no output schema. It only names the tool as a 'radar signal,' leaving the expected response ambiguous. A user would need additional information to understand the tool's full context.

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 no parameters, and the description only mentions that query parameters exist, referring users to the 'instruments' tool for details. This lacks explicit parameter semantics, leaving the user without concrete information about what parameters can be passed.

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 the tool provides a pre-IPO/new-listing radar signal, which is specific enough to distinguish it from other signal tools. It also mentions it is a paid tool, adding clarity about its nature.

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 notes the paid nature and directs users to the 'instruments' tool for parameter documentation, giving some usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly compare when to use this tool over other signal tools, though the pre-IPO focus is implied.

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 the payment requirement, the specific cost range, and the behavior of uncredentialed calls (returning 402 payment envelope). It doesn't describe what a successful response contains, but that's partly covered by the absence of an output schema. The payment disclosure is crucial and well-addressed.

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-loaded with the essential purpose ('Horse racing pick'). It efficiently packs the payment, cost detail, error behavior, and authentication method into minimal words. No wasted sentences 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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: purpose, payment, error behavior, and authentication. The reference to the instruments tool for parameter details is a sensible pointer. It doesn't describe what the successful output looks like, but given the absent output schema and simplicity, this is acceptable. It's mildly incomplete because it doesn't hint at the response format, but for a paid pick service it adequately sets expectations.

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 shows zero parameters and describes additionalProperties as strings, meaning query parameters are open-ended. The description doesn't list specific parameters, but it references the 'instruments' tool for per-endpoint parameter docs. Since there are 0 parameters defined, the description compensates by pointing to the instruments tool, providing a clear path to parameter information. Schema description coverage is 100% but there are no actual 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 'Horse racing pick' which identifies the resource and action, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve'. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like signal_equities, signal_f1, etc., by specifying the domain (horse racing).

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 clearly states the cost requirement and that uncredentialed calls return a 402 payment envelope. It also instructs how to authenticate (set X-API-KEY on the MCP connection or pay x402 out-of-band). It doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings, but the paid nature and domain specificity imply the 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 that the tool is paid, the credit cost and pricing ranges, and that uncredentialed calls return a 402 payment envelope. It also specifies how to authenticate via X-API-KEY or x402 out-of-band, adding substantial behavioral context. It does not cover return format or rate limits, but the critical payment and auth behavior is well documented.

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 opens with the core purpose, then details the computation, a parameter example, and a bracketed payment/auth section. While fairly dense and technical, the length is justified by the necessary paid-access details and the need to explain the data scope. It is reasonably front-loaded and every segment 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?

Given the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description effectively conveys the tool's data content, access requirements, and a parameter hint. It doesn't specify the response envelope or pagination, but the pointer to the 'instruments' tool for parameter docs and the 402 behavior cover the most critical operational aspects. Overall, it is adequately complete for a paid, single-endpoint scan.

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 no explicit properties (only additionalProperties) and defers parameter docs to the 'instruments' tool. The description adds a concrete '?city=nyc' parameter example, which provides meaning beyond the schema's generic string-based specification. With zero declared parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description adds valuable, though not exhaustive, parameter context.

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 monthly precipitation scan (5 cities)' and specifies the exact data computation involved (resolution-gauge floor, forecast distribution, bucket book comparisons). It narrowly targets precipitation, distinguishing it from general scan or other signal tools, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or '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 intended use is implied by the purpose and the '?city=nyc narrows' example, and the paid nature with cost details provides prerequisites. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like signal_stormy or signal_polymarket, nor any when-not-to-use criteria.

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 burden. It clearly discloses the paid nature, cost, and the 402 payment envelope behavior for uncredentialed calls. It also names the required header (X-API-KEY) and an out-of-band payment path. However, it doesn't describe what happens on successful calls, rate limits, or error behavior beyond 402.

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 that mixes purpose, payment terms, credential setup, and error handling. It lacks front-loading of the essential function and buries the most critical operational info in parentheses. The payment details are verbose and could be streamlined.

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 complex credential requirements and no output schema, the description leaves major gaps: it doesn't explain the output format, the meaning of 'factor/regime screen', or how to successfully invoke the call. It references external docs rather than providing inline guidance. The presence of 43 sibling signal/scan tools makes this incomplete for selection.

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 string additionalProperties. Schema coverage is 100% because there are no parameters to cover, but the description lacks any explanation of what parameters the endpoint accepts or how to form them. It only points to the free 'instruments' tool for docs, which is indirect guidance. The baseline for 0 params is 4, but the additionalProperties indicate unspecified parameters, and the description fails entirely to explain them.

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 'Equity screener signal — factor/regime screen to a single call', which identifies the resource (equity screener) and action (signal screen). However, 'factor/regime screen to a single call' is vague and doesn't clearly distinguish from many sibling signal_* and scan_* tools. It lacks specificity about what inputs drive the screen or what the output represents.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like signal_equities or scan_market. It mentions payment requirements but not selection criteria, use cases, or prerequisites (e.g., what credentials are needed beyond API key).

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 must disclose behavior. It does disclose that it's PAID and the cost, and that uncredentialed calls return a 402 payment envelope. It also mentions setting X-API-KEY or paying out-of-band. However, it does not describe what a successful response contains, whether it's a real-time or delayed signal, or any rate limits, etc. The focus is on payment rather than behavioral richness.

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 bit dense and front-loaded with the payment info. It's one long sentence structure with semicolons and brackets. It conveys important info, but it's not as clean as it could be. For a simple tool with no params, the description is longer than necessary, but every piece of info about payment is critical.

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 is for 'sports pick' and it's paid, the description doesn't explain what the pick includes, what sports coverage, how the signal is delivered, or any sample usage. Since there is no output schema, the description should provide more context about what the agent can expect from the call. It also fails to explain the relationship to the 'instruments' tool for parameter docs, which is mentioned but not elaborated.

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 schema has nothing to describe. The description doesn't need to add parameter meaning, but it does point to the 'instruments' tool for per-endpoint parameter docs, which is helpful. Given no params, the baseline is 4, but the description's pointer to 'instruments' is useful context so 3 feels appropriate as it doesn't fully clarify what additional parameters might be passed via 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 states 'Sports pick for 35+ sports worldwide' which identifies the verb ('pick' as in provide a pick) and the resource (sports signal). It distinguishes somewhat from the many other 'signal_' tools by specifying '35+ sports worldwide' and the paid nature, though it's not explicit about what differentiates it from signal_screener or other signal tools. It could be more specific about the output (e.g., a recommended bet).

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 the many sibling tools like signal_basket, signal_equities, or signal_screener. The description focuses on payment mechanics, not on use cases or scenarios where this would be the right choice.

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 partially discloses behavior: it states that uncredentialed calls return a 402 payment envelope and that a signal is generated. However, it does not specify the output format (e.g., a probability, a recommendation, etc.) or what the 'best band-disjoint divergence' means in practice. The behavior is opaque regarding the actual signal result.

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 compact (one paragraph) and includes necessary operational details (cost, auth, parameter hint). However, its structure is dense and poorly organized, mixing technical specifications with usage notes. It could be more readable with clearer sectioning or plain-language explanations.

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 gives some context (Polymarket, temperature markets, ~52 cities) and hints at usage (narrowing by city). Yet it lacks a high-level explanation of why a user would need this signal, how it fits into the broader set of tools, or when it is appropriate to call. The context is incomplete for a user unfamiliar with these specific markets.

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 no explicit properties, only allowing arbitrary string-valued parameters via additionalProperties. The description only hints at one parameter, 'city' (e.g., ?city=nyc), but does not document other potential parameters or their meanings. This leaves parameter semantics largely undefined and inconsistent with the schema's open-ended nature.

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 is highly technical with jargon like 'ladders', 'band-disjoint divergence', and 'met.no distribution', making it unclear to a general user what the tool actually does. It mentions 'daily temperature scan' and 'signal', but does not plainly state that it generates a prediction signal for Polymarket temperature markets.

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 some usage guidance: it mentions the optional 'city' parameter to narrow scope, the cost in credits, and authentication requirements (X-API-KEY or x402). However, it does not explain when to use this tool compared to sibling signal tools, nor does it describe typical use cases or expected input beyond a city.

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 fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses payment requirements, cost per credit, 402 payment-envelope behavior for uncredentialed calls, and the need for X-API-KEY or x402 out-of-band payment. It also explains the algorithm's logic, which gives insight into expected behavior. However, it does not mention rate limits, error responses, 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 run-on sentence containing multiple technical clauses and payment details, making it difficult to parse. It is not front-loaded or well-structured; key information (payment, class parameter) is buried mid-sentence. The length is justified by complexity, but the lack of formatting and clear separation hurts 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 tool's complexity (finance-ladder scan, CDF pricing) and absence of output schema, the description provides substantial algorithmic detail and payment context. However, it does not describe the response shape, pagination, or error cases. It partially compensates by pointing to 'instruments' for parameter documentation, but still leaves gaps for an agent to fully understand invocation and expected output.

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, but the description explicitly documents that a 'class' parameter (commodities|stocks|crypto) is required. It also directs users to the 'instruments' tool for per-endpoint parameter docs, compensating for the schema's lack of structured definitions. The description adds meaning beyond the schema, though it does not cover potential additional 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 is a scan tool for Polymarket finance-ladder signals, specifying the algorithm (close-above/touch rungs priced against CDF or realized-vol bands) and required class parameter. It differentiates from sibling signal tools through its unique 'Ticker' name and specific scan logic, though the technical jargon may obscure the core 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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other signal scanners (e.g., signal_equities, signal_crypto). It mentions the required ?class parameter and payment requirements but lacks guidance on selection context or exclusions. There is no mention of alternatives or 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?

With no annotations present, the description discloses key behaviors: it is a paid endpoint, costs 1 signal credit, returns a 402 payment envelope for uncredentialed calls, and requires X-API-KEY or x402 out-of-band payment. The endpoint is explicitly GET, implying a read-only operation. This is meaningful behavioral context, though rate limits or response details are not mentioned.

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 one dense but purposeful sentence, front-loaded with purpose before payment/auth details. Every clause adds relevant information (cost, auth, failure behavior, endpoint). Slightly cluttered due to parentheses and multiple clauses, but efficient overall.

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 should explain return values and usage scenarios more. It states the tool provides 'RWA listings/flows intelligence' but not what the response contains, how results are structured, or when to choose this over closely named siblings. Payment and auth are well covered, but output and context are incomplete.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description notes 'Query parameters' and directs users to call the free 'instruments' tool for per-endpoint parameter docs, adding a practical pointer for obtaining semantics not in the schema. It does not enumerate actual parameters, but with 0 params the baseline holds.

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 'Tokenization-trend radar' providing 'RWA listings/flows intelligence', which names the domain and resource distinctly from many sibling tools. It lacks a specific verb (e.g., 'list', 'scan'), but the purpose is evident and not tautological.

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 covers payment and authentication requirements but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like signal_tokenized or signal_ticker. It only points to the 'instruments' tool for parameter docs, which is not usage guidance. No exclusions or use-case context are provided.

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?

Clearly discloses that the tool is paid, explains the payment method (signal credit or x402 USDC), and describes the uncredentialed behavior (402 envelope) and how to authenticate or pay. This goes beyond basic annotations and gives actionable 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 brief but includes necessary payment details. It is not overly verbose and focuses on key requirements, though the payment info could be seen as cluttering the core 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?

Lacks essential details about what the signal actually provides (e.g., output format, interpretation, actionable advice). Payment info is present, but the functional value and usage are underdescribed, leaving the tool's full purpose unclear.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing to describe. The description adds no parameter-specific info because none exist; the baseline of 3 applies given full schema 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?

Identifies the resource as a market signal for tokenized/RWA assets, but does not specify the nature of the signal (e.g., sentiment, trend, buy/sell). It distinguishes from other signal tools by asset class, but the purpose remains vague.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus other signal tools. It only mentions payment requirements, not usage context or 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 the full burden. It transparently discloses that the tool is paid, details the cost, and explains the payment/authentication flow (X-API-KEY or x402), including the 402 response for uncredentialed calls. However, it does not describe the actual success response or the nature of the eligibility check beyond the name, leaving a gap in behavioral 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?

The description is concise but informative, with the purpose front-loaded and payment details bracketed. Every sentence adds value: purpose, cost, and authentication method. It is not overly verbose and avoids redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given it has no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the payment and access mechanics but does not describe what the eligibility check returns (e.g., a boolean, reasons, or status codes). This is a notable gap for a tool with no other structured metadata, making it incomplete for full usage understanding.

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 but allows arbitrary additional properties, with schema coverage at 100% due to the explanation. The description (via the schema) points to the free 'instruments' tool for parameter documentation, which compensates for the lack of specific parameter info. Since there are 0 formal parameters, baseline is 4, and this pointer keeps it at that level.

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 a jurisdiction-eligibility check for tokenized stocks and pre-IPO perps, using a specific verb ('check') and resource ('jurisdiction-eligibility'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like signal_tokenized or signal_pre_ipo, which focus on data or signals rather than eligibility.

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 on when to use the tool (for eligibility checks) and includes payment and authentication requirements. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for similar functions, though the schema pointer to 'instruments' for parameter docs adds some 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 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.