Create user custom signal

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

Annotations already declare the safe/unsafe profile (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), and the description usefully adds the authorization requirement and a hard quota (100 signals). It does not disclose what happens on quota exhaustion or what the created object looks like, but the added auth/quota context is real value beyond the annotations.

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?

Short and front-loaded, with the permission requirement bolded at the end. The opening line restates the title almost verbatim ('Create user custom signal' / 'Create a new user-defined signal'), which is a small redundancy but the rest earns its place.

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 two-parameter creation tool with no output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the essentials: what is created, the auth requirement, and the per-user quota. Only the failure behavior at the quota boundary and confirmation of request/response shape are left unaddressed.

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% and both parameters (title, description) carry their own max-length descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The prose adds no format or content guidance for the signal name or description beyond what the schema already states, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (create) and resource (user-defined signal), which cleanly separates it from the sibling edit/delete/list/get user-signal tools. It is clear and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly name the alternative tools the way a top-tier definition would.

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 gives prerequisites (requires `Bot trading` permission, max 100 signals per user) rather than usage routing. It never says when to choose this over pionex_bot_edit_user_signal or pionex_bot_list_user_signals, so an agent must infer the create-vs-modify boundary from the name alone.

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