get_signal_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It successfully communicates Beta status and data quality caveats ('Accuracy scoring is under development'), but omits operational details like pagination behavior, data retention periods, or computational costs that would be needed for full transparency.

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?

Four efficient sentences with minimal waste. The Beta tag is front-loaded, followed by purpose, specific data fields, use case, and data quality disclaimer. Each sentence adds distinct value, though 'Shows recent signals' slightly overlaps with 'View...signal log' but adds field specificity.

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?

Adequate for a simple single-parameter tool with complete schema coverage. The description identifies key return fields (regimes, postures, risk scores) compensating somewhat for the missing output schema, but could strengthen completeness by clarifying the time window behavior (only 'recent' signals) and Beta limitations.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage for the single 'limit' parameter which is well-documented in the schema itself. The description mentions no parameters, which warrants the baseline score of 3 when schema coverage is high (>80%).

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?

Clearly states the tool 'View Fathom's signal log' with specific content details (regimes, postures, risk scores) that help distinguish it from siblings like get_alerts or get_market_regime. However, it lacks explicit scope limitations or direct comparison to sibling tools that would make differentiation immediate.

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 an implied use case ('Useful for tracking how conditions evolved over time') but lacks explicit guidance on when to select this over siblings like get_historical_context or get_alternative_signals, and does not mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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