get_trade_signal

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying 'reads live exchange APIs, no orders' and 'Verified track record, on-chain verified merkle anchor,' which gives extra behavioral and trust context without contradicting the annotations. It does not discuss rate limits or failure modes, but the annotation coverage keeps the bar lower.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, then alternatives, safety, and alias info. It is a bit long but every sentence adds value; the merkle anchor detail could be seen as extra but serves as a trust signal. No wasted words.

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 has no output schema, the description adequately explains return values ('BUY SELL HOLD trade call with confidence and market regime'). It covers scope, alternatives, safety, and alias. It does not elaborate on the exact structure of the output, but the description of the composite verdict is a reasonable summary. Overall, it is complete for an AI agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 100% with detailed parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, though it emphasizes 'one asset only' which reinforces the coin parameter's single-asset constraint. It does not go beyond what the schema already communicates.

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 returns a composite BUY/SELL/HOLD verdict with confidence and market regime for a single crypto or tokenized-stock perpetual futures. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly noting 'One asset only' and pointing to scan_trade_calls for whole-market scans and get_equity_call for US stocks, and it identifies itself as an alias of get_trade_call.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'One asset only' and direct alternatives: 'for a whole-market scan use scan_trade_calls, for US stocks use get_equity_call.' It also clarifies the alias relationship, which prevents confusion. The read-only safety note further guides appropriate usage.

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