Get latest signal

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior; the description goes beyond by disclosing that only the metadata envelope is returned and that config/provider alter indicator defaults and data source. It does not discuss error or absence-of-signal behavior, but given the annotation coverage, the disclosure is solid.

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 short sentences deliver purpose, return-scope, use case, and optional parameters without filler. Core information is front-loaded and every sentence contributes.

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 read-only signal query with a nested config object and no output schema, the description names the returned top-level fields and key invocation options. It leaves some return-structure detail implicit, but an agent can select and invoke the tool correctly based on this definition.

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 description coverage is only 20%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does for the two ambiguous optional parameters: config overrides indicator defaults and provider forces a bar provider. The required parameters are illustrated by the BTC/15m example, though the config object's possible keys are still 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 identifies a specific verb/resource ('latest signal envelope' for indicator, symbol, resolution) and contrasts it with full per-bar plot arrays, which differentiates it from siblings like get_indicator_full. The concrete use-case query makes intent unambiguous.

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?

It gives an explicit use case ('what is sniperV3 saying about BTC on 15m right now?') and explains the optional config/provider behavior. It does not explicitly name when not to use it or direct the agent to get_indicator_full for plot arrays, though that alternative is strongly implied.

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