bnb_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 it discloses a lot beyond structured fields: a mandatory x402 payment ($0.01/call, USDC on Arc/Base/Solana or XNT on X1), the two-step terms-then-pay authorization flow, a high-risk/not-advice warning, and the exact BUY/SELL/WARN thresholds. Return semantics are only sketched ('open signals with live change and the whole track record'), so it stops short of full behavioral disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the signal criteria, then output, risk, and payment mechanics in a compact block. Dense but nearly every clause carries operational information; the payment-location list (Arc/Base/Solana/X1) is the one part that reads as padding.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must cover returns, and it does at least summarize them ('open signals with live change and the whole track record'). Combined with the trigger rules, risk caveat, and payment flow, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though the signal object's exact fields remain underspecified.

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 coverage is 100% and the single `payment` parameter is fully documented in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning by explaining that omitting `payment` returns the terms to sign and that a second call with `payment` completes the purchase, behavior the schema does not convey.

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 (BNB Chain dip signals) and defines the exact trigger logic (PancakeSwap launch, last 48h, $20k+ liquidity, sells back in simulation, 18%+ below 2-hour high). The 'BNB Chain' scope plus the signal thresholds make it clearly distinct from siblings like arc_dip_signals and bnb_fresh_launches without needing to name them.

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?

It gives explicit invocation guidance for the paid flow (call once without `payment` for terms, sign, call again with `payment`), which is useful. However it never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as arc_dip_signals or bnb_fresh_launches, so when-to-use vs siblings is only implied.

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