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 usefully discloses the authentication requirement and what the output contains, but does not mention read-only behavior, rate limits, freshness, or return format. It provides some meaningful context without being 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 two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds output details and the access requirement, making every sentence informative.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what is returned, from which source, and what key level is needed. Minor missing details like response shape or data freshness would be nice, but the description is largely complete for invocation purposes.

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?

There are zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the schema already fully describes the input surface. The description has no need to explain parameters, matching the baseline for parameterless tools.

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 resource ('trading signals'), the source ('Alpha bot'), and the key data fields ('entry, stop-loss, take-profit'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as get_bot_status and get_market_overview, which serve different data products.

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 an access prerequisite (Trader or Api plan key) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It neither names sibling tools nor explains scenarios where get_trading_signals is preferred over tools like get_smart_money or get_whale_movements.

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