rate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It emphasizes the tool is 'FREE' and 'costs nothing', but lacks details on idempotency, potential side effects, or authentication needs. For a simple feedback tool, it is minimally adequate but could be more explicit about safety.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage context. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or wasted words.

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?

The tool has no output schema, but given its simple nature as a feedback submission, the description sufficiently covers input and usage. It does not explain the return value, but this is not critical. Overall complete for its simplicity.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds minor context by clarifying score range (1-10) and purposes of pros and cons, but does not significantly enhance meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states it is a feedback tool for rating signals after trading or evaluating. It specifies that users leave a score 1-10 plus pros and cons, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'scan_bottoms' and 'subscribe' which are unrelated.

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?

Description explicitly says 'after you have traded on (or evaluated) our signals', providing clear context for when to use. It also mentions 'costs nothing, no payment header needed', which informs about prerequisites. However, it does not mention when not to use or provide alternatives, but given no sibling feedback tools exist, this is acceptable.

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