botindex_signals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'premium signals' and a cost ('$0.10'), implying a paid or premium service, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or what 'aggregated' entails. The cost hint is vague and doesn't clarify if it's per call, subscription, or something else.

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 brief but not optimally structured. It lists signal types efficiently but includes the confusing '$0.10' without explanation, which doesn't earn its place. It's front-loaded with the core purpose but could be clearer by omitting or explaining the cost suffix.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a tool that likely returns complex signal data, the description is incomplete. It names signal types but doesn't explain the format, scope, or interpretation of results. For a tool with 'aggregated' data and potential cost implications, more context on what to expect is needed.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, which is fine here. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the schema fully covers the absence of inputs.

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 states the tool provides 'aggregated premium signals' with three specific components (correlation leaders, prediction arbitrage, market heatmap), which gives a general purpose. However, it doesn't specify what resource or data source these signals come from, and the cryptic '$0.10' suffix adds confusion rather than clarity. It distinguishes somewhat from siblings by focusing on 'signals' but lacks specificity about the domain or target.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lists signal types but doesn't indicate context, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'botindex_hl_correlation_matrix' or 'botindex_hl_liquidation_heatmap' that might overlap. Users must infer usage from the signal names alone.

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