arc_dip_signals

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the cost ($0.01/call), payment rails (x402 USDC on Arc/Base/Solana, XNT on X1), a two-step auth flow, the return content, and a 'Not advice' disclaimer. It omits rate limits and error/failure behavior, so not a 5.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the signal rule and returns come first, then pricing, then the payment flow. Every sentence carries actionable information, though the single wall of text is slightly heavy.

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 paidsignal tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, return contents, pricing, and the payment protocol. It leaves only minor gaps around failure handling and rate limits.

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 single `payment` param is fully covered by the schema, and the description adds real meaning by explaining what passing it does ('the purchase completes inside this tool call') and how to obtain/sign the terms. This exceeds the schema baseline.

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 specific resource (Arc dip signals) plus the exact strategy rules (BUY at 18%+ below 2-hour high, SELL at +10%, WARN at -60%). An agent can immediately distinguish it from arc_smart_signals and bnb_dip_signals based on the Arc scope and rule set.

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?

Gives clear operational context, including the two-step purchase flow ('call once without payment for the terms, sign them with your own wallet, call again with payment'). Does not name an explicit when-not or alternative sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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