crypto-signal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose potential side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or response structure. For a simple getter, this is minimally acceptable but not fully transparent.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains zero filler words and conveys all necessary core information efficiently.

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 tool with only two parameters and full schema coverage, the description adequately conveys the primary purpose. However, there is no output schema, so the description could briefly mention the return format (e.g., a list of indicator values) to fully complete the picture. Still, it is sufficiently clear for typical usage.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear explanations for both parameters (symbol and interval). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, merely echoing 'crypto pair' which duplicates the symbol field. Thus the 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a precise resource ('detailed technical indicators') with concrete examples (RSI, MACD, EMA, Bollinger Bands). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_crypto_signal (signals) and screen_crypto_market (market screening).

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 implies usage for obtaining raw indicator data, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over the sibling tools or mention any exclusions. No alternatives are named in the description, leaving some ambiguity for an AI agent.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'technical analysis' but does not explain the basis of the signal, potential limitations, real-time vs. delayed data, or any other behavioral traits. This is a significant gap for a trading signal tool.

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 a single, clear sentence with no redundant or filler content. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without cluttering.

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?

While the tool is simple with only two well-documented parameters, the absence of annotations, output schema, and any behavioral context means the description leaves the agent without essential details like return format or how the signal is computed. It is minimally complete but lacks depth for reliable decision-making.

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 ('symbol' and 'interval') are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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 states the tool retrieves a buy/sell/hold trading signal for a cryptocurrency pair, which is a specific verb+resource. The term 'trading signal' differentiates it from sibling tools like get_crypto_indicators (which returns indicators) and screen_crypto_market (which screens markets).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where the sibling tools would be more appropriate. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and sibling context.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the scanning behavior and output (trading signals), but does not explicitly note whether it is read-only, rate limits, or side effects. 'Scan' suggests read-only but is not explicit.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently communicates the action, scope, and output.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what a trading signal looks like or the result format. It only says 'return trading signals for each', which is minimally sufficient but incomplete for an agent expecting to consume the result. The lack of annotations also reduces completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning to the 'limit' parameter by clarifying that the scan selects 'top cryptocurrencies by volume', which is beyond the schema's description. It does not add to 'interval' but the overall added context raises the score.

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 states the tool scans top cryptocurrencies by volume and returns trading signals for each. The verb 'scan' and resource 'top cryptocurrencies' with the outcome 'trading signals' make the purpose specific and distinguishable from sibling tools that likely focus on individual indicators or signals.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus get_crypto_indicators or get_crypto_signal. It implies a screening use case but does not state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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