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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, but the description goes well beyond by disclosing specific behaviors: it is READ-ONLY and does not place orders/move funds/mutate accounts, responses may be cached (~1800s), authentication methods (X-Api-Key or x402 payment proof), cost per call, rate limit, and return structure. This context is genuinely useful for the agent and not present in the annotations. No contradiction exists.

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 well-structured with labeled sections (Behavior, Auth, Cost, Rate Limit, Returns, Guidelines, Tags), which aids scanning. However, it is verbose and repeats the exact same purpose sentence twice, which wastes words. The length is acceptable for the amount of detail, but the redundancy prevents a higher score.

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 is complete for this tool's complexity. It covers the tool's purpose, behavior (read-only, caching), authentication, cost, rate limits, return format, and usage guidelines. An output schema exists, so return details are not needed in the description. The tool has no required parameters, and the single optional parameter is already well documented in the schema. There are no significant gaps.

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 only one optional parameter, __x_payment, with a comprehensive description already explaining its purpose (x402 payment proof for HTTP 402 retries). Schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add much. The description mentions __x_payment in the auth context, but this does not add significant new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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's function with a specific verb ('scans'), a defined resource (36 major crypto assets across BTC, ETH, SOL, alts, and memes), and a precise scope (multi-timeframe technical signals including RSI, MACD, Bollinger Bands, ATR, and composite scores). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cc.central_signal or cc.indicator_generator by asset coverage and output type. The only minor flaw is the duplicated purpose sentence, but the clarity is 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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use for research / signal context' states when to use, 'Pair with cc.agent_strategy (paper) before any live order' names an alternative/companion tool, and 'Do not invent fills from this data alone' gives a clear exclusion/caution. This is more than sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

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