veroq_fast_signals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns an array with direction, score, and factors, costs 1 credit, and is pre-computed/refreshed. It does not mention any side effects or limitations, but for a read-only data operation this is adequate.

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 extremely concise, using a single line for purpose followed by short labeled sections (WHEN, RETURNS, COST, EXAMPLE). Every sentence adds value with no redundancy, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers core aspects: purpose, usage scenario, return structure, and cost. It could benefit from specifying the exact fields in the returned array or the refresh frequency, but it is still sufficient for an agent to decide to use it.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage. Per guidelines, the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details, and it provides an empty example request ({}), which is consistent.

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 explicitly states it provides pre-computed buy/sell signals across 78 tickers, refreshed every cycle. This clearly defines the verb (provide), resource (signals), and scope (78 tickers, refreshed), distinguishing it from siblings like veroq_ticker_analysis (individual analysis) and veroq_screener (customizable).

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 'WHEN TO USE' section directly advises using it for a quick overview of all active signals without individual analyses, and for scanning opportunities. This explicitly provides context and differentiates from alternative tools.

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