Ichimoku Signal

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description is consistent with those. Beyond annotations, it adds genuinely valuable behavioral disclosure: the $0.10 USDC payment via x402 on Solana or Base (an agent should know a call costs money), the rejection of invalid pairs before payment, and a concrete summary-format example. These exceed what the structured annotations convey.

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 dense but every clause earns its place: pricing is front-loaded, the indicator list is complete, the output contract is specified, and the pre-payment rejection behavior is a worthwhile caveat. It's slightly long but nothing is fluff.

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 present, the description compensates by detailing the return structure (per-indicator values and votes, combined signal, confidence levels, score, summary). Payment model, invalid-pair behavior, and interval default are all covered. The only gap is the lack of explicit sibling routing, which keeps it shy of a 5.

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 both parameters thoroughly (pair with examples and exchange order, interval with full enum). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies — the schema carries the load and the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 uses a specific verb-plus-resource framing: six indicators for a crypto pair in one call, enumerating each indicator (Ichimoku, RSI 14, MACD 12/26/9, EMA 50/200, Bollinger Bands 20/2, OBV) and the output shape (values, votes, combined signal, confidence, score, summary). This sharply distinguishes it from single-indicator siblings like ichimoku_signal without opening their schemas.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the aggregation of six indicators conveys 'use when you want a confluence signal across multiple indicators,' but the description never names the sibling alternatives (ichimoku_signal, ichimoku_trend, price_levels) or gives explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance. The 'Same as GET /signals/{pair}' line is API equivalence, not routing guidance.

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?

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations by disclosing the payment requirement, supported chains, and that invalid pairs are rejected before payment. It does not overclaim or contradict 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the payment caveat, then lists the signal outputs efficiently. It repeats the price already present in the title, but the additional chain detail makes that repetition useful.

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 compensates by enumerating the signal fields returned. Combined with full parameter schema coverage and read-only annotations, an agent has enough information to call the tool correctly, though the response format is not specified.

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%, with pair and interval already well documented including examples, exchange fallback, and default interval. The description's timeframe mention only restates the existing enum range and adds no new parameter-level meaning.

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 that the tool returns the full Ichimoku Cloud signal for a crypto pair and enumerates the output components (direction, cloud position, tenkan/kijun cross, span values). It is distinct in content from ichimoku_trend, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from that sibling.

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 only usage-related information is the prerequisite that the client must be x402-capable and that the tool costs $0.02 USDC. There is no guidance about when to choose ichimoku_signal over ichimoku_trend, confluence_signal, or price_levels, so an agent cannot reliably route between siblings.

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, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: the 20-calls-per-hour rate limit, the exchange coverage (Binance.US, Kraken, Gate, MEXC), and the top-200 coin restriction. No contradictions 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 one dense sentence but every clause carries information: output types, data sources, rate limit, and sibling routing. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description fully enumerates the returned signal types and conditions. Combined with the rate limit, coverage scope, and alternative routing, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret this 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?

The input schema already fully documents the single pair parameter with examples. The description adds meaning by clarifying the pair must be from top-200 coins and specifying the exchange priority, which helps the agent choose valid values.

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 defines the tool's output: daily Ichimoku trend (bullish/bearish/neutral), cloud position, and tenkan/kijun cross for a crypto pair. It also distinguishes itself from all four siblings by naming the exact alternatives for related but different needs.

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 when to use alternatives: ichimoku_signal for other timeframes/line values, confluence_signal for six indicators, price_levels for support/resistance, and market_scan for all top-200 coins. This leaves no ambiguity about tool selection.

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 readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, the description transparently discloses that the call costs $0.25 USDC via x402 on Solana or Base, excludes stablecoins, sorts results, and matches GET /scan. This is useful behavioral context that annotations alone would not provide.

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 a single dense sentence with no filler, front-loading the payment requirement and core purpose. Parentheticals and embedded examples make it slightly run-on, but every clause adds substantive information.

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 aggregate endpoint with no output schema, the description supplies payment, network, scope, sorting, market breadth, per-coin fields, the optional filter, and API equivalence. No critical detail is missing; the interval default is already covered by the 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 baseline is 3. The description adds no real parameter meaning beyond restating the signal filter; the interval parameter is entirely left to the schema, which already documents it.

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 and resource: it returns the Ichimoku Cloud signal for 148 top-200 non-stablecoin coins in one call, sorted by cloud distance. The market-wide scope and per-coin output fields clearly distinguish it from the single-coin sibling tools.

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 implies use for a broad market overview with an optional signal filter, but it never explicitly says when to choose this over ichimoku_signal, ichimoku_trend, or price_levels, nor does it state exclusions. The context is enough to infer general use, but explicit routing guidance is absent.

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?

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it is paid ($0.05 USDC via x402), invalid pairs are rejected before payment, and levels are derived from price history rather than being trade advice. This is useful for an agent deciding whether to invoke the tool and what to expect.

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 dense but front-loaded with the payment requirement and then enumerates the output components in a clear list. It is a long single sentence, but every clause adds relevant information; it could be split into shorter sentences but is not bloated.

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 there is no output schema, the description does a good job listing the return contents. It also covers payment, invalid-pair handling, and the non-advice nature of the output. It does not explain the x402 payment flow or explicitly address sibling-tool overlap, but it is largely complete for invocation.

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 pair and interval well. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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?

The description clearly states what the tool returns: price levels, supports/resistances, ATR, pivots, Fibonacci, Ichimoku levels, bias, and a long/short plan for a crypto pair. It is specific about the resource and output, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tools like confluence_signal or 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It mentions 'Same as GET /levels/{pair}' and includes 'bias from the confluence signal,' but it never says 'use this instead of confluence_signal for a full plan' or provides any exclusion criteria.

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