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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It lists the signal contents but does not clarify whether the tool only returns a signal or actually executes a trade, nor does it mention permissions, freshness, rate limits, or side effects. For a tool named 'execute' in a trading context, that ambiguity is significant.

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 two tight sentences, front-loads the resource and output contents, and then gives the usage condition. There is no filler, and every phrase contributes to understanding what the tool provides.

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 and no annotations, the description must carry more of the return-value and behavior explanation. It does list several signal fields, but it leaves out the output format, field meaning, freshness, and the crucial question of whether the tool places an order. It is minimally adequate for a zero-parameter signal tool but not fully complete.

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 tool has zero input parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline score of 4 is appropriate because the schema requires no invocation details.

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 resource: the funding+momentum confluence engine's current best setup as a complete trading signal, including side, basis, entry parameters, and leverage cap. It distinguishes the output from raw data, but does not differentiate from specific siblings such as akari_confluence or akari_trade_plan, and the tool name 'execute' creates some ambiguity about whether it executes or merely returns a 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?

The phrase 'Use when you want a ready trading signal, not raw data' gives general when-to-use guidance and an implicit when-not-to-use condition. However, it does not name alternatives or clarify how this differs from similarly named siblings like akari_confluence, akari_trade_plan, or akari_hl_market.

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