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

The description discloses pricing ($0.01 per call), states it is 'educational data, not financial advice', and explains payment methods. It also mentions the lookback window. However, it does not explicitly state side effects (e.g., read-only nature) or any rate limits, and it lacks detail on output format or error behavior. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden but only partially fulfills it.

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 purpose, then provides relevant usage details (lookback, payment, disclaimer). It is somewhat lengthy due to payment instructions, but each sentence adds necessary context. The structure is logical, starting with what it does and then how to pay, without excessive tangents.

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 no output schema, the description provides partial information about return values (mentions direction, strength, confidence, source agent) but lacks clarity on response format, error handling, or edge cases. It is sufficient for a high-level understanding but not fully complete for an agent to anticipate all behaviors.

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 description explicitly explains the 'hours' parameter ('Lookback window via ?hours= (default 24)') and implies the symbol parameter by saying 'for one symbol'. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does provide some clarity but does not detail accepted formats or edge cases (e.g., valid symbols, range limits).

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 states it provides 'recent trading signals for one symbol' and lists specific types (options flow, dark pool, technical, sentiment, congressional), making the tool's purpose explicit. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_apex_signals or get_composite_signal, which might have overlapping functionality.

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?

It mentions the lookback window parameter and points users to browse other tools via get_catalog, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusions or comparative selection criteria beyond the general description.

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