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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds a caveat not in annotations: 'queries both the per-symbol signal store and the paper-trading store', disclosing data source behavior. Does not contradict annotations and provides useful additional context.

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?

Description is well-structured with clear sections (Purpose, Triggers, When to call, Prerequisites, Next steps, Caveats, Disclaimer, Args). While slightly long, each section serves a purpose and aids agent comprehension. The disclaimer is brief and relevant.

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 4 parameters and an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what it does, when to invoke, prerequisites, follow-up tools, behavioral caveats, and parameter explanations. No significant gaps remain for correct invocation.

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 0%, but the description defines each parameter: market_id as market type, symbol as preferred asset identifier, coin as legacy alias, and interval as timeframe with default. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema properties, though it doesn't explain 'combined' interval semantics.

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?

Description clearly states 'Per-symbol signal deep-dive — latest signal + history + feedback', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_signals (list) and get_signal_calibration (aggregate) by focusing on a single symbol's detail. Example triggers further clarify the exact query intent.

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?

Provides explicit 'When to call' guidance: 'drilling into a single ticker's signal context'. Also specifies prerequisites ('confirm existence via get_signals first') and next steps (get_role_analysis, get_position_detail), giving clear directions on when to use this tool vs alternatives.

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