START HERE on first contact — the front door. Who Signal Bureau is, what's free (most things), what's paid (work: Watches and Reads), the live tariff with real prices, how to propose new coverage, and how buying works. No side effects, costs nothing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'No side effects, costs nothing,' which clearly indicates that the tool is safe and free to use. This is significant behavioral information for an agent. It doesn't describe the return format, but no output schema exists, and the description sufficiently covers the non-destructive, no-cost nature.
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 concise and front-loaded, beginning with the key directive 'START HERE' and the metaphor 'the front door.' It efficiently lists the covered topics in a single follow-up sentence and concludes with the safety statement. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted 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?
Given the tool's low complexity (zero parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, what information it delivers, and its safety profile. The description fully equips an agent to understand when and why to invoke it.
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 parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially complete. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline score of 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is needed since there are no parameters to explain.
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 identifies this tool as the starting point for first contact ('START HERE', 'the front door'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools. It enumerates the specific information it provides (who Signal Bureau is, free/paid content, tariffs, proposing coverage, buying), making its purpose unambiguous.
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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'START HERE on first contact.' This provides clear context for its role as the entry point. While it doesn't name alternative tools or when not to use it, the 'START HERE' guidance implies that other tools are used after orientation, so the usage context is well defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct function: ask is async event queries, get_answer retrieves results, get_signals and top_accelerating provide different signal views, get_entity and search_entities cover entity details and search, etc. No two tools have overlapping purposes, and descriptions clearly separate them.
The majority of tools follow a 'get_' prefix for retrieval (13 of 21) and other clear verbs like 'ask', 'create_order', 'propose_topic', 'send_feedback'. A few use noun phrases like 'todays_brief' and 'top_accelerating', which breaks the pattern slightly but are still intuitive. Overall consistent and predictable.
21 tools cover the full scope of the server: exploration, querying, ordering, account management, feedback, and data records. Each tool serves a clear purpose without redundancy, and the count feels well-scoped for the domain.
The tool surface covers all major workflows: browsing signals, asking questions, getting detailed reports, ordering, providing feedback, and proposing new topics. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit tool to cancel an order or manage watched topics directly), but core operations are present and agents can handle the domain effectively.
