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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable operational context beyond annotations: pricing ($0.075 USDC), payment transport (x402), and chain availability (Base/Solana), which are important for an agent deciding whether to invoke this paid tool. It also names the data inputs synthesized.

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

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

The description is a single, dense sentence that front-loads the core function and adds only the crucial commercial detail as a parenthetical. There is no wasted text; every element contributes to understanding what the tool does and what it costs.

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 annotations, the 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the tool's purpose, pricing, and network context, and the remaining operational details are carried by the structured fields. It could add a sentence about intended use cases relative to siblings, but nothing critical is missing.

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 covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions, including the token symbol format and the timeframe enum with defaults. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 clearly identifies the tool's function: synthesizing real-time social velocity, developer commits, and token mention spikes into a momentum signal. It is specific about the resource (token momentum) and domain (social sentiment), and it is distinguishable from siblings like signals.intent_feed by focusing on momentum rather than intent.

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

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

The description conveys clear context for when this tool is relevant: when real-time social sentiment and token momentum are needed. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the 'Real-Time' framing and momentum vector language provide adequate usage context given the sibling list.

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