get_trade_signal

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false; the description adds that it reads live exchange APIs and places no orders, plus mentions a verified track record and on-chain merkle anchor. This goes beyond the annotations and gives useful context about data sources and credibility.

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 dense but efficient: it front-loads the primary output in the first sentence, then covers single-asset scope, read-only behavior, credibility, and alias relationship. Every sentence contributes operational or routing value with no significant fluff.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description adequately explains the return value as a composite verdict with confidence and market regime. It also covers read-only behavior, asset scope, the alternative scan_trade_calls, and the alias to get_trade_call, making the tool self-sufficient for an agent to 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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well documented. The description adds meaningful scope constraints not explicit in the schema, such as 'one asset only' and 'crypto or tokenized-stock perpetual futures,' which clarifies how the coin parameter should be interpreted beyond the schema wording.

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 trade call with confidence and market regime for one crypto or tokenized-stock perpetual futures asset. It also distinguishes itself from scan_trade_calls by explicitly limiting scope to one asset, and the alias note clarifies its relationship to 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 explicitly says 'One asset only' and directs agents to scan_trade_calls for whole-market scans. It also states this tool is an alias of get_trade_call and recommends preferring get_trade_call for new integrations, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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