Surf Signal

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description goes beyond annotations by listing the four commands (detail, projects, token-of-the-day, token-of-week) and the data types included (latest price, price-change, dimension scores, compact signals, AI summaries). It does not mention pagination or default time_range values, but the command structure adds real value.

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 front-loaded with the primary use case, followed by a succinct command reference. The command list earns its place due to the multi-command structure. There is no redundant or filler content, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey what the tool returns. It provides a high-level overview (signal cards with latest price, price-change, dimension scores, AI summaries) and enumerates commands with parameters. However, it does not detail per-command output differences or response formats, leaving a minor gap for a 4-command tool.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and only provides a generic 'params' object. The description fully compensates by listing each command's parameters explicitly with types and enums (e.g., id, project_slug, time_range with [24h, 7d], limit, offset). This gives the agent complete parameter semantics that the schema alone would 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?

The description states a specific purpose: 'Use this when the user needs signal data from Surf' and elaborates with 'Explore ranked project signal score snapshots...'. The verb 'explore' and resource 'signal data' distinguish it clearly from sibling tools like surf_dex or surf_news, which focus on other domains.

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?

There is an explicit trigger condition: 'Use this when the user needs signal data from Surf'. This gives clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of a full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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