Ichimoku Signal

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

Annotations only cover readOnly and openWorld, so the description carries the weight and does so well: it discloses the $0.15 x402 price, the accepted chains and stablecoins, and that validation happens before payment. It stops short of describing response pagination or latency, but for a single-call read tool that is minor.

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?

One dense paragraph, front-loaded with price and the indicator list so the value proposition lands immediately. The payment-chain enumeration is long but earns its place for a paid tool; the news-field caveat is a useful addendum rather than filler.

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 two-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers cost, payment mechanics, prerequisites, failure behavior, and even a caveat about the news field breaking signals. Nothing an agent needs to decide or invoke correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters (pair with format examples, interval enum with default) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds only the high-level constraint that the pair must already be chosen; it contributes no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a concrete resource ('six indicators for a crypto pair in one call') and enumerates every indicator (Ichimoku, RSI 14, MACD 12/26/9, EMA 50/200, Bollinger 20/2, OBV) plus the aggregation logic, so an agent knows exactly what it gets and how it differs from single-indicator siblings like ichimoku_signal.

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 states the precondition ('One pair you already chose') and routes the agent to the right alternative ('to find which coins have a setup, use trade_setups'), plus a when-not note that invalid pairs are rejected before payment.

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

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the service is free, that a human reads every report, and that nothing is automatically run or changed. This adds meaningful behavioral context for a submission tool and is consistent with readOnlyHint=false.

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 tightly written sentences. Purpose, scope, and key behavioral traits are front-loaded with no wasted text.

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 low-complexity feedback submission tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations, the description covers what the tool does and how it behaves. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 schema already documents all four parameters. The description mentions structured reporting and the bug/feature/other categories but adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb ('Report') and resources ('a bug, a missing feature or anything else about this service'), and explicitly frames it as structured feedback. Sibling tools are unrelated market-analysis tools, so no sibling differentiation is needed.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: for bugs, missing features, or other service-related feedback. It does not explicitly name when not to use it or list alternatives, but the context is unambiguous.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description's remaining job is the paid-invocation behavior, and it does disclose cost, accepted chains/tokens, and pre-payment validation. However, the payment enumeration is mixed into the same breath as the signal output, and it never states what a failed or unpaid call returns versus a successful one, so a critical behavioral detail is left implicit for a paid endpoint.

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 core purpose is buried behind a ~40-word parenthetical listing eight chains and three stablecoins, so the agent reads pricing before learning what the tool returns. The remainder is tight and the sibling routing sits at the end where it is useful, but the front-loading is inverted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be fully documented, yet the description still names the signal fields and the 'news' flag that can invalidate the signal. With two parameters, a 100%-covered schema, and clear sibling routing, nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'pair' examples (including xrpl: syntax) and the interval enum with its 1h default. The description only restates the timeframe range (1m to 1M) and adds no format or edge-case meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline case.

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 ('the full Ichimoku Cloud signal for a crypto pair on any timeframe') and enumerates the returned fields: bullish/bearish/neutral, cloud position, tenkan/kijun cross, and span values. It also differentiates itself from siblings by declaring 'Ichimoku only' with explicit pointers to confluence_signal and price_levels.

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?

Names the exclusions and the alternatives explicitly: six indicators means confluence_signal, entry/stop/targets means price_levels. It also states prerequisites (an x402-capable MCP client) and that invalid pairs are rejected before payment, which tells the agent what happens when input is bad.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, yet the description still adds real behavioral context: a 20 calls/hour rate limit, the four upstream exchanges, the top-200 coin universe, and the explicit absence of line values. It stops short of saying what happens when the rate limit is hit, but the added context is well beyond the 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?

Purpose is front-loaded ahead of the sibling routing, and every clause carries information. The exchange enumeration and the five-way routing list make it dense, but nothing is redundant with the schema or title.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description covers scope, rate limit, sources and alternatives. The only gap is a small stylistic one: the 'free' designation is stated but its practical consequence beyond the rate limit is left implicit.

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 coverage is 100%, including xrpl: issuer formats, so the schema already carries the syntax burden. The description still adds meaning by scoping the pair universe to the top 200 coins across four venues, which tells the agent when a pair will resolve. Marginal but genuine value over the schema, so one notch above the high-coverage baseline.

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 — the daily Ichimoku Cloud trend for a crypto pair — and enumerates the exact outputs (bullish/bearish/neutral, cloud position, tenkan/kijun cross). It explicitly distinguishes itself from ichimoku_signal by timeframe and by not returning line values.

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?

Names five sibling tools and the precise condition that selects each: other timeframes/line values → ichimoku_signal, six indicators → confluence_signal, support/resistance → price_levels, all coins at once → market_scan, ranked setups → trade_setups. Routing is explicit with no inference required.

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

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

Annotations only declare readOnly and openWorld; the description adds substantial context beyond that: a $0.10 x402 payment in specified tokens across nine chains, stablecoins excluded, the sort key (distance from cloud), and the breadth summary format. It doesn't cover rate limits or failure behavior on payment, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Dense and front-loaded, but the payment clause enumerating nine chains and three tokens occupies most of the opening sentence and slows the agent reaching the actual function. The core purpose, sort order and alternative follow efficiently.

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?

Output schema exists, yet the description still summarizes the per-coin payload and breadth string. Combined with the cost/payment requirements, sorting, exclusions and sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to decide and call 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both enum parameters. The description restates the signal filter as optional but says nothing about the interval parameter or its default, so no meaning is added beyond the schema.

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 the Ichimoku Cloud signal for 148 top-200 coins in one call, sorted strongest bullish to strongest bearish, with market breadth. It also names the sibling it is not (trade_setups) so an agent can route immediately.

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 scope: 'for the market's direction at a glance', with the alternative named — 'for coins with entry, stop and targets use trade_setups'. The optional signal filter is also flagged as optional.

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

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

Adds substantial context beyond the readOnly and openWorld annotations: the possible candle sources including Binance.US, Kraken, Gate, MEXC and the XRP Ledger DEX, the dollar-quote substitution behavior, and a 60-calls-per-hour rate limit. It also clearly disclaims candle fetching and signal generation, which prevents a common misuse.

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 pricing context is front-loaded and the exclusion and rate limit are placed where an agent will see them. It is dense but every clause carries useful information; slightly more separation between the exchange list and the interval statement would improve scanability.

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 free lookup tool with a full output schema and annotations, this is complete: it covers supported pair sources, quote substitution, excluded capabilities, the sibling alternative, and the rate limit. Nothing needed to call it correctly appears to be missing.

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 schema already documents accepted pair formats well. The description still adds meaning by explaining that another dollar quote such as USDT, USD or USDC can stand in for the requested quote, which is resolution behavior the schema does not state.

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: checks whether a crypto pair is supported, which exchange supplies its candles, and which intervals the paid tools accept. It explicitly separates itself from sibling ichimoku_trend and from the paid tools, so an agent can choose it without opening another schema.

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?

Gives an explicit use condition ("before paying") and names the alternative for a different need ("for the daily trend use ichimoku_trend"). It also states what the tool does not do, fetches no candles and returns no signal, which narrows usage further.

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

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

Annotations only cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds the material behavior an agent cannot infer: a $0.10 x402 charge, the accepted chains and stablecoins, the coverage universe (top-200 coins plus XRPL DEX pairs), the conditional rule for when a plan is emitted (risk/reward to target 1 of at least 1.5), and an explicit efficacy disclaimer. That is well beyond the structured fields and directly affects whether and how the agent should call 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 price and core purpose are front-loaded and every clause carries information, but the parenthetical enumeration of eight chains plus two stablecoins makes the opening sentence heavy and slows the agent's scan. It is dense rather than padded, so a 4 rather than a lower score.

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 single-parameter paid read with an output schema, the description covers purpose, cost, coverage, the conditional structure of the response (bias, plan or reason, alignment), and a sibling alternative. Nothing an agent needs before calling it is missing, and return-value detail is appropriately delegated to the output schema.

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 pair parameter, its examples and the xrpl: issuer syntax are already fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes the coverage universe ('Top-200 coins and XRPL DEX pairs') without adding new syntax or format guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: the trade setup for one crypto pair across three horizons (1h/4h/1d), with named outputs (six-indicator confluence bias plus conditional plan and alignment). It also maps itself to the underlying endpoint (GET /setup/{pair}) and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling trade_setups, which returns the ranked list across all coins.

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 single-pair scope is stated up front and the alternative is named explicitly: 'For the ranked list across all coins use trade_setups.' It also states the pre-condition that invalid pairs are rejected before payment, so the agent knows bad input costs nothing and how to avoid the paid path.

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

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

Annotations only say readOnly and openWorld; the description adds the things that actually change agent behavior: it is paid ($0.05 via x402) across a list of chains and stablecoins, invalid pairs are rejected before payment, and levels are derived from price history rather than being trade advice. That is real cost, failure-mode, and liability context beyond the structured fields.

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 core purpose is strong but is buried behind a long parenthetical enumerating nine payment chains and three stablecoins, which is bulk that does not help tool selection. The single mega-sentence mixes payment mechanics, output inventory, disclaimers, and routing, when the purpose and the trade_setups alternative deserve to lead.

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 two-parameter read tool with an output schema and annotations covering safety, this is nearly complete: cost, invocation constraints, output inventory, and error handling are all covered. The only shortfall is that related-signal siblings (confluence_signal, ichimoku_signal, pair_setup) are not positioned relative to this tool.

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 coverage is 100% and the pair parameter already documents accepted formats down to XRPL issuer syntax, so the description only reinforces the single-pair constraint rather than adding new parameter meaning. It says nothing extra about the interval parameter or its default beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Names a specific resource (price levels for a crypto pair) and enumerates the concrete outputs: up to 3 supports/resistances, ATR, pivots, Fib retracements, Ichimoku levels, bias, and long/short plans. It also anchors to the underlying endpoint (GET /levels/{pair}) and explicitly distinguishes itself from trade_setups, so an agent can separate it from siblings without opening the schema.

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?

States a clear scoping rule ("One pair") and routes the multi-coin/ranked-plan case to trade_setups, plus notes invalid pairs are rejected before payment, which affects whether an agent should call it speculatively. It does not differentiate from the other closely-named siblings such as pair_setup or confluence_signal, so the alternative mapping is only partial.

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

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

Goes well beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint: it discloses the paid access model ($0.50 via x402, with the full list of chains and payment tokens), the ranking formula, the down-weighting factors for volatility, nearby support/resistance and thin liquidity, and an honest backtest caveat. Minor gap: no mention of rate limits, retries or failure behavior when payment fails.

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?

Dense but purposeful, with no filler sentences. However, the long parenthetical enumerating eight chains and three stablecoins occupies the very front of the description, pushing the actual purpose into second position; a short purpose statement before the payment detail would improve front-loading.

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 5 optional params, full schema coverage, and an output schema that carries the return shape, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it screens, how results are ranked, cost/payment mechanism, and a candid accuracy disclaimer.

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 schema already documents top, min_rr, interval, direction and liquid_top. The description names the filters and gives one example ('e.g. 30' for liquid_top is in the schema) but adds no new meaning such as how min_rr interacts with the two take-profit targets, and interval is never mentioned. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('which crypto coins have a trade setup right now') plus scope ('for 148 top-200 coins' and the six indicators behind the signal). It explicitly separates itself from siblings: 'The screener across all coins; for one pair you already chose use confluence_signal and price_levels.'

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with named alternatives (confluence_signal, price_levels for an already-chosen pair), and even frames the tool's limits ('A screener, not a strategy'). The filter list (direction, min_rr, top, liquid_top) shows how to narrow usage without opening the schema.

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