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

With no annotations to lean on, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that the route ALWAYS returns HTTP 200, that unpaid signals are counted via locked_count and payment_required, the pricing model (10🍒 or $0.10 USDC over x402 per signal) and that the 100 free reads/day never apply to live signals. It also states the response envelope (counts, mirroring_paused, rules_hash, latest timestamp) and signal fields, including the important constraint that no absolute order size is ever returned.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then requirements, then mode behavior. The dense parentheticals (rules hash "consent to this one", the free-reads caveat, the x402 aside) are mostly load-bearing but make the paragraph heavy, and the single-signal route note could be folded in more cleanly.

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 two-parameter, annotation-free, output-schema-free tool, the description supplies everything an agent needs: payment/authorization behavior, the always-200 contract, how to detect locked/unpaid signals, and the shape of returned signal data. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 both parameters are already documented and the baseline would be 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by tying live=true to a paid read with a specific price and to the fact that free daily reads do not cover it, which materially affects how an agent should set the flag.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Read a Forge vault's signals") and precisely defines the two modes (older than 24h free vs younger than 24h paid). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling forge_signal_plan, leaving the agent to infer the read-vs-plan split, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use routing for each mode ("With live omitted or false" vs "With live true") and names the alternative path for the single-signal case ("To pay for and read exactly ONE signal directly, call GET /forge/signals/{signal_id} instead"). The prerequisite (vault_id required) and the x402 billing caveat are spelled out.

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