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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description goes beyond this by stating 'Read-only: live exchange APIs, no orders,' which clarifies the side-effect profile in operational terms. It also discloses that the tool is an alias with identical behavior to get_trade_call, and mentions the verified track record/merkle anchor, adding context beyond the structured annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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

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

The description is front-loaded with the core verdict and scope, followed by usage routing, read-only behavior, track-record pointer, and alias notice. Each sentence earns its place, though the track-record/merkle-anchor detail is slightly tangential for correct invocation. It remains well under an overlong length and is logically organized.

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

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

With no output schema, the description usefully summarizes the return content: BUY/SELL/HOLD verdict, confidence, and market regime. It also covers single-asset scope, read-only behavior, and the alias relationship. It does not detail error conditions or exact output fields, but for a straightforward signal tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the essential context for correct invocation is present.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all five parameters with descriptions and enums. The tool description itself only adds 'One asset only,' which reinforces the coin parameter's singular scope but does not substantially enrich parameter meaning beyond the schema. 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 opens with 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 clearly distinguishes this tool from the whole-market scan (scan_trade_calls) and identifies itself as an alias of get_trade_call, so an agent can immediately understand what it does and how it differs from siblings.

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?

Explicit usage routing is provided: 'One asset only; whole-market scan: scan_trade_calls' tells the agent when to use this versus the sibling. The alias note adds 'Prefer get_trade_call for new integrations,' which is direct guidance on alternative selection. No ambiguity remains about when this tool is appropriate.

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