Signal outcomes ledger

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: data is 'logged live and never backfilled', indicating freshness and lack of historical coverage. It also clarifies that this is descriptive market data only, setting expectations about the level of insight. This goes beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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 concise, two sentences, and front-loads the core content. The inclusion of a tracking link adds a marketing element but does not bloat the description. It is efficient and does not waste words, though the URL is not strictly necessary for understanding the tool.

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?

The tool has no output schema and minimal parameter docs, so the description carries the burden of explaining what is returned. It mentions fire-time and later prices, giving some return shape, but it omits details about pagination (limit), filtering (coin/type), or the meaning of 'hours'. Key contextual gaps remain, making the description only minimally 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 description coverage is 0% for 4 parameters (coin, type, hours, limit), and the description does not explain any of them. The term 'type' is especially ambiguous, and there is no guidance on how to filter or interpret the time window. Since the description must compensate for the lack of schema documentation, it completely fails to do so.

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 indicates the tool returns recently fired signal-ledger flags with fire-time and later prices, which is a specific resource. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on signal outcomes rather than whale trades or liquidations. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', making it a noun phrase rather than a direct action statement.

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 implies usage context by stating 'Descriptive market data only' and offering 'More depth on a developer plan', which suggests this is a basic, read-only view and that deeper data is not available here. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide clear when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance, but the limitation is somewhat conveyed.

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