get_btc_usdc_signal

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions side effects: none, cost details, and that HOLD direction is always free. It also specifies the return type hypernatt_mimo_cycle_state_v1 with fields. No contradictions.

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 relatively concise given the amount of information, using bullet-like phrases and front-loading the main question. Could be slightly more structured but overall efficient.

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?

For a tool with 3 parameters (none required) and no output schema, the description covers return structure, cost, side effects, usage conditions, and sibling differentiation, making it complete.

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 does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond schema descriptions, but it provides usage context (e.g., vault bias, cycle_id) that indirectly aids parameter understanding. However, value added over schema is limited.

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's purpose: real-time Mimo cycle state (LONG/SHORT/HOLD) from a public Hyperliquid vault. It mentions the return structure and distinguishes from siblings by naming alternative tools for different conditions (e.g., get_mm_trap_state, get_mm_hunt_score).

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?

Explicitly provides when-to-use ('vault bias, cycle_id, leg count') and when-not-to-use ('MM trap weather (get_mm_trap_state) or hunt score (get_mm_hunt_score)'), with specific alternative tool names.

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