Swing / range signal

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing that the data is public, possibly delayed, and possibly wrong – a real caveat an agent needs before quoting numbers.

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?

Front-loaded with the useful signal list, then the regime thresholds. The closing pair "Information only, not a trading instruction" and "Education/information only; not financial advice" is partially redundant and could be one clause.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully enumerates the return values (ranges, volatility, regime bands, rung count) and their numeric cutoffs. Missing only pooling of the response shape or units for volatility, which is a minor gap for a single-param read tool.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the pool format and case-insensitivity fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, so baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb and resource: high-low range and realized volatility from hourly candles, plus regime and ladder rung count. It is clearly distinguishable from get_ohlcv or get_volume because it names derived signals, though it never names a sibling directly.

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?

"Information only, not a trading instruction" is a usage constraint, but the description never says when to pick this tool over get_ohlcv, get_pool_stats, or get_volume. The agent must infer the selection rule from the field list alone.

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