arc_smart_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 substantial work: it discloses pricing ($0.01/call), accepted payment rails (USDC on Arc/Base/Solana, XNT on X1), the exact output payload (wallet record, simulated sell check, staged entry/exit plan with quarter-Kelly cap), and a 'not advice' disclaimer. It omits rate limits, timeout/refund behavior, and what happens if payment is invalid.

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?

Purpose and signal definition are front-loaded in a dense first sentence, followed by output contents and the payment flow. It is wordy and packs many clauses into one sentence, but each sentence conveys actionable information (criteria, outputs, cost, handshake) rather than filler.

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 1-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly self-sufficient: it defines the signal, enumerates the returned artifacts, states cost and payment rails, and gives the two-step paid-call procedure. Minor gaps remain around error/refund handling and rate limits, but nothing critical for a correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents `payment` including that it is a base64 x402 payload passed as PAYMENT-SIGNATURE. The description corroborates the two-call flow but adds no format detail beyond the schema, 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?

Names a specific resource (smart-money signals on Arc) and gives precise scope: the 25 most profitable wallets of the last 24h, with concrete trigger thresholds (3+ buys or $150+ in 60 min; 2+ wallets together) and an EXITED exit condition. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like arc_dip_signals, arc_whale_feed, and arc_exit_check.

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 an explicit invocation flow for the paid handshake: call once without `payment` for terms, sign with your own wallet, then call again with `payment`. It does not, however, say when to prefer this tool over adjacent signal tools (e.g. arc_dip_signals or arc_whale_feed), so the routing guidance is incomplete.

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