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.