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

The description discloses the core behavioral rule (5-minute window with ≥1% price change) and the time window, which is useful. However, since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden, but it omits side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or output format, leaving the agent under-informed about operational behavior.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('active price signals within the last N hours') and appends the essential pulse definition in parentheses. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 one-parameter tool, the description covers the core purpose and signal criteria, but omits output structure, parameter bounds, and edge cases (e.g., no signals found). Since there is no output schema or annotations, the agent may have to guess the response format, making the description only partially complete.

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 already documents the 'hours' parameter with a description of 'query window (default 24)', but the tool description explicitly maps N to hours, clarifying that the parameter controls the lookback period. This adds semantic meaning beyond the schema's terse label, enhancing understanding.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving 'active price signals' within the last N hours, with a specific criterion of 5-minute window ≥1% change. This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on entities, events, or topics, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 this tool versus alternatives, or any exclusions or prerequisites. The description only implies usage through its purpose, which is insufficient for an agent to decide between this and sibling tools like ask_alpha or get_macro_snapshot.

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