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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load, and it does substantial work: it discloses that the tool is free, has no parameters, that the allowlist is schedule-derived and never hand-edited, that entries are per model_version using current-version evidence only, and that older versions remain visible as labeled history. It omits auth/x402 mechanics beyond 'price free' and says nothing about rate limits or refresh cadence.

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 dense but front-loaded, leading with the core noun (per-class edge-signal calibration) before details. Some phrasing is promotional ('the gate deciding what we sell') and the trailing HTTP/docs line is boilerplate, but overall each sentence adds substance without excessive padding.

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 must describe the return, and it does so explicitly (resolved-signal count, predicted-vs-realized by decile, allowlist flag, version history). Combined with the free/allowlist behavioral context, an agent has enough to call and interpret it; only sibling routing and refresh timing are unaddressed.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a no-param tool is 4. The description correctly implies a parameterless, whole-table read rather than a query interface.

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 and output clearly: a per-class edge-signal reliability table with resolved-signal counts, predicted-vs-realized by decile, and allowlist status. It is clear what the tool does, but it never names or contrasts itself with adjacent siblings like edge_detail, edge_backtest, or probability_venue-calibration, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

There is a soft usage cue ('Free forever so you can judge signal quality before paying for signals') implying this is an evaluation/audit step. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, no mention of how it relates to edge_backtest or edge_detail, and no prerequisites spelled out.

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