Señal de Quant Pro

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: an authorization prerequisite (Quant Pro pass) and a cross-tool input-format quirk, which the annotations cannot convey.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then the access requirement. It is slightly redundant with the schema's own format warning, which is the only waste.

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?

Low complexity (one required parameter), rich annotations, and the description covers the auth gate and the input-format pitfall. With no output schema the description does not say what a 'quantitative signal' contains, which is the only notable gap.

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% and the schema itself already documents the symbol format with examples ('BTCUSDT', not 'bitcoin'). The description mostly restates that same constraint, adding only the framing that this differs from other tools, so the baseline 3 is 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource: it returns a quantitative signal for a trading pair, which is clearly distinguishable in kind from batch_signals and scan_market. It does not explicitly name a sibling or state which one to prefer, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

It gives one real usage condition (the Quant Pro pass is required and no other engine enables it) and warns about the input format. However, it never says when to choose this over get_insight, batch_signals, or scan_market, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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