signallord_get_hash_ribbons

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds transparency by detailing the output structure (current, crosses, divergence) and explaining the divergence calculation (rolling z-score vs 1y baseline).

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 concise (two sentences plus a brief list of output components) and front-loaded with the key concept. No extraneous information; every sentence 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?

Given the technical nature of the indicator, the description is complete: it explains what the tool returns (current state, historical crosses, divergence series) and the baseline used. An output schema exists to detail return fields, so the description does not need to reiterate them.

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 only 50% (days described, response_format not described). The description does not clarify the parameters beyond what the schema provides, nor does it explain the response_format parameter. With moderate coverage, the description should compensate but doesn't.

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 identifies the tool as providing Hash Ribbons data (30/60-day hashrate MA cross and divergence z-score). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on a specific on-chain metric, and the explanation of the cross's significance adds clarity.

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 explains the bullish signal context (cross after capitulation) and what the output fields represent. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, the purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer when to use this tool over others.

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