get_signal

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It mentions 'live signal' implying real-time data and lists return fields, but does not explicitly state it is a read-only operation or disclose any side effects, rate limits, or data freshness. The output schema likely covers return structure, but behavioral traits are minimally described.

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?

Two sentences, efficient and front-loaded. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, output, and supported assets. Minor improvement would be to note that it is read-only, but not essential.

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?

The description adds no new information beyond the input schema, which already covers the 'asset' parameter with values BTC, ETH, SOL. Schema coverage is 100%, so the default score is 3. The description does not provide additional semantic meaning.

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 it returns a live BUY/SELL/HOLD signal and lists the output fields and supported assets. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_market_brief or get_market_sentiment, but the specific output (consensus signal, confidence score) makes it distinct enough.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_market_sentiment or ask_oracle. The description lacks context about its appropriate application, e.g., for trading decisions or real-time analysis.

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