signallord_get_realized_price

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

Annotations already declare the tool safe and idempotent. The description adds behavioral context: it is a state machine that reports the current regime (above/below) and the most recent reclaim/loss event. No contradictions with 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?

The description is concise with three sentences, each adding value: first states purpose, second provides historical context, third details output. No redundant or extraneous information.

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 output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description is fairly complete: it explains the tool's function, output structure, and historical significance. However, it does not describe the effect of the 'days' parameter on the output, which would improve completeness.

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 50% (only 'days' has a description). The tool description does not explain any parameters, missing the opportunity to clarify the 'response_format' parameter. The schema does not provide complete meaning for both parameters.

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 as a 'Realized Price state machine' that checks if spot is above or below on-chain cost basis, with historical significance. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the output structure (current.state) and its market cycle implications.

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 provides context for when to use the tool (for market cycle analysis), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use it over sibling tools or exclusions. The historical context hints at usage scenarios but does not directly address tool selection.

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