Get Signals

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no statement that it is a read-only computation, no data-window or history requirement (relevant for 12-1 momentum), no freshness/latency notes, and no hint about what happens for an invalid or untradeable symbol. Naming the metrics and calling the regime 'rule-based' is the only behavioral signal.

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?

One tight sentence with no filler, and the metric inventory is front-loaded so an agent can judge relevance immediately. Nothing to trim.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a computation with a historical window (12-1 momentum) and an untyped symbol identifier, the description should at least cover symbol format and any lookback/data assumptions; those gaps keep it merely adequate.

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 coverage is 0% for the single required 'symbol' parameter, and the description only echoes it as 'for a symbol'. It adds no format guidance (ticker vs. exchange-suffixed, case sensitivity, supported universes), so the one input the agent must supply remains underspecified.

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 enumerates exactly what is computed for a symbol (RSI, volatility, drawdown, 12-1 momentum, rule-based trend regime), which is far more concrete than 'Get Signals'. It never names the siblings get_quote or compare_symbols, so the boundary between a single-symbol signal panel and a price quote or multi-symbol comparison is left to inference.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says to call this instead of get_quote for a raw price, or instead of compare_symbols when evaluating multiple names. The agent must infer the selection rule from the metric list alone.

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