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

The description is rich with behavioral details: 2-snapshot order-book mechanics, ~1-2 second latency, Binance sampling rate, confidence differences, fallback behavior, and evidence text. However, it states that snapshots are also saved every 5 minutes to D1, which is a write side effect and directly contradicts the readOnlyHint: true annotation. Per the rubric, this is an annotation contradiction.

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 main purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the subsequent dense sentences carry substantive caveats about data sources, latency, fallback, and confidence. It is long, but the complexity of a six-signal detector justifies most of the detail; a slightly tighter edit would earn a 5.

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?

The description specifies the composite output (score, tier, evidence text) and directs the agent to documentation for full limitations, which covers most operational needs. However, with no output schema present, it does not spell out the exact response structure or tier thresholds, leaving some ambiguity.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single symbol parameter, including pattern, length, and example values. The description does not add any additional parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 verb 'Gabungkan' and the exact resource: six MM/whale signals combined into one score plus a tier. It also separates this tool from single-signal siblings by noting it replaces 5-6 manual tool calls and explicitly says it is not a trading recommendation.

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 gives a clear consolidation use case ('ganti 5-6 tool call manual') and a negative boundary ('BUKAN rekomendasi trading'). It does not name specific sibling alternatives or provide explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use criteria, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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