publish_signal

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

The description discloses cost ($0.005 per call) and earning mechanism (70% of fees), which are not in annotations. However, it does not mention other behavioral traits like side effects, permissions, or return values, which are critical for a write operation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It effectively conveys the core action and unique monetization aspect, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 single free-form parameter and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain return values, success conditions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 description coverage is 100% with a description for the sole parameter, albeit vague with an external link. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameter, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 action 'publish a signal' and provides a distinct purpose (earning fees), which helps differentiate from sibling tools like signal_query. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. It implies use for publishing signals, but lacks 'when-not' scenarios or references to alternatives.

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