get_news_by_signal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering and default/max limits, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or response format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter details in a structured 'Args:' section. Every sentence adds value, though the formatting is basic and could be more polished for readability.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and output details. Without annotations or output schema, more information on response structure or error cases would improve completeness.

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 description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'signal' accepts values 'long' (bullish), 'short' (bearish), or 'neutral', and specifies 'limit' defaults to 10 with a max of 100. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't detail data types or constraints beyond what's implied.

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's purpose: 'Get news filtered by trading signal type.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('news'), and filtering criteria ('by trading signal type'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_news_by_engine' or 'search_news_by_coin', which also filter news but by different attributes.

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. With multiple sibling tools for news retrieval (e.g., 'get_latest_news', 'search_news', 'get_news_by_source'), the description lacks context on when signal-based filtering is appropriate, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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