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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently lists the signal components and the output rating scale (COLD to EXPLOSIVE), which reveals the tool's analytical behavior. It does not discuss side effects, but as a scoring tool it is clearly read-only.

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 a single, dense sentence that communicates the core purpose and output rating without filler. Every phrase contributes meaningful information.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the purpose and expected rating scale. It might benefit from stating the output format more explicitly, but the essentials are present.

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 description already covers the parameter as 'Token name or symbol (required)'. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, such as format examples or case sensitivity, but the schema provides 100% coverage, so the baseline of 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 computes a combined alpha score using specific components (momentum, volume surge, buy pressure, whale boost). It implicitly distinguishes from flow-focused siblings by focusing on a composite score, though it lacks a concrete verb like 'calculates' and does not explicitly name the asset class.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use alpha_signal versus its sibling tools (e.g., flow_scan, top_whales). There are no contextual examples, exclusions, or mentions of alternative tools.

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