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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it usefully discloses that the call costs $0.02 USDC on Base and is paid in-band via x402 MCP. However, it omits other relevant behavior such as return format, rate limits, and failure modes.

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 tool's data content and then gives payment details, with no filler sentences. It is dense with domain jargon but still reasonably efficient for a paid data endpoint.

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 paid composite market-data tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what data is included and how payment works. It still leaves gaps around return structure and when to prefer this composite over the sibling regime and band-dot tools.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the optional pass parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds payment context but does not explain the pass token or add parameter semantics 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 exactly what the tool returns: Stage 1 regime score plus WaveTrend 10/21/4 across 66 Kraken 4h pairs with all band dots. It is specific enough to distinguish this composite signal from a generic market-data call, but it does not explicitly contrast it with siblings like get_regime or get_band_dots.

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 provides payment mechanics but no when-to-use guidance. It does not say when an agent should call get_full_signal instead of get_regime, get_band_dots, or the alternate HTTP endpoint beyond listing that endpoint.

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