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

The description adds details beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, such as cursor-based pagination, the 7-day lookback limit, and that forward returns are only included once mature. 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 extremely concise at two sentences, front-loading the core functionality and including an illustrative question. Every word adds value.

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 parameters, no output schema, and good annotations, the description adequately conveys the tool's purpose, constraints (7-day window, specific signal types, return windows), and pagination mechanism. Could detail the output format more, but it's sufficient for an API 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description adds no extra parameter-specific meaning, but it is consistent. Baseline 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 specifies that the tool returns server-detected signal events over up to 7 days, including types like funding outliers, whale trades, and OI caps, with joined forward returns. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_signals or get_recent_signals by focusing on historical analysis with returns.

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 includes an illustrative use case ('What happened last time funding spiked on HYPE — and did it matter?') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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