get_btc_usdc_signal

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

With no annotations, the description discloses payment requirement ($0.01 USDC via x402) and states it is read-only for agent workflows. It explains the optional payment payload behavior. Could mention authentication or rate limits, but overall transparent.

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?

Three sentences, each adding value: purpose, return contents, payment/read-only note. No fluff, front-loaded with key action.

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 tool complexity (pay-per-call, specific signal), description covers purpose, return fields, payment mechanism, and read-only nature. Lacks output schema but lists key returns. Sufficient for agent decision-making.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about payment flow (omit to get 402 instructions) but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema definitions.

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 uses a specific verb 'Fetch' and clearly identifies the resource as 'live BTC/USDC signal state from HyperNatt Mimo on Hyperliquid'. It differentiates well from sibling tools like swap_quote or get_agent_balance.

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 for reading signal state and mentions payment cost, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for trading vs. signal checking). No exclusion criteria or comparison to siblings.

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