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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clarifies that the return is structured JSON with verification-record fields (predicted_on/verify_by/verify_event/result), which is useful, but says nothing about permissions, data freshness, volume, or failure behavior for what is presumably a read.

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 and compact, with purpose and return shape in the first clause. The emoji and field enumeration add mild noise but every 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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the exact fields returned by each signal, which is the most important missing structured information. Filtering behavior is left to the schema, so little is absent.

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 description coverage is 100%, so limit, result, and industry are already documented with examples and filtering semantics. The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline here.

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 verb+resource ('读取信号信息差看板') and describes the returned content, including the high-information-gap signal focus. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_track_record or read_earnings_tracker, though it does not explicitly name the distinction.

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

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

The description never says when to choose this tool over alternatives such as ask_edge or get_track_record, nor does it state any preconditions. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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