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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds that it uses live exchange APIs and places no orders, which is useful operational context beyond the annotations. It also mentions the verified on-chain merkle anchor, providing extra transparency without contradicting the structured hints.

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

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

Three sentences front-load the primary result, then give the key scoping constraint and sibling alternative, followed by read-only and verification context. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

With no output schema, the description still communicates the core return shape: BUY/SELL/HOLD verdict, confidence, and market regime. Combined with fully documented parameters and annotation-provided safety profile, the agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds the one-asset constraint and output composition but not much new parameter-level detail, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource—'Returns a composite verdict—BUY SELL HOLD trade call with confidence and market regime—for one crypto or tokenized-stock perpetual futures.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming scan_trade_calls as the whole-market alternative and get_track_record for track-record requests.

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?

Explicitly says 'One asset only; whole-market scan: scan_trade_calls,' giving a clear when-not and direct alternative. It also routes users wanting verified performance to get_track_record or performance://signal-performance, so usage context and alternatives are concrete.

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