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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context: that an X-API-Key or Bearer wallet token is required. It says nothing about response shape, pagination, latency, or whether all four signal families are always returned.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the capability stated up front and the auth note in parentheses. The noun-phrase style lacks a verb but is 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?

For a read-only, single-filter tool this is close to adequate, but with no output schema the description should at least sketch what a 'signal' record looks like or how the four families are returned. Combined with the unaddressed `vertical` parameter, meaningful 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?

With one optional parameter at 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the burden, and it never mentions the `vertical` filter at all. The schema's enum values (crypto/finance/tech/turkish) are somewhat self-explanatory, which keeps this from scoring lower, but the meaning of 'vertical' as a scope filter is never stated and 'vertical-shift' in the signal list could confuse an agent into conflating the two.

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 names the resource precisely, enumerating four signal families (momentum, volume-weighted, regime, vertical-shift), so the agent knows what data comes back. But there is no verb (list/fetch/compute) and no differentiation from the sibling muhabbit_sentiment_index, which sounds near-identical.

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 choose these signals over muhabbit_sentiment_index or muhabbit_confidence. The only usage instruction is an authentication prerequisite, which is helpful but is about access, not selection between alternatives.

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