get_news_by_signal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly conveys a read-only retrieval operation ('Get news') and documents the signal types and limit bounds, but it does not disclose return value shape, sorting, pagination, or any error/access behavior. This is adequate for a simple read tool but not rich.

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 efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a compact Args section. Every sentence adds necessary information, with no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 simple two-parameter read tool, the description covers all input semantics and gives practical limits. There is no output schema, so a short note about the returned news shape or ordering would improve completeness, but the current description is still sufficient for correct invocation in most cases.

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 input schema provides only types, a title, and a default, with 0% schema description coverage. The description fully compensates by explaining that 'signal' accepts 'long' (bullish), 'short' (bearish), or 'neutral', and that 'limit' controls maximum results with default 10 and max 100.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get news') and identifies the unique filtering dimension ('by trading signal type'), which clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_news_by_source or get_news_by_engine. The signal values and limit are also specified, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

The phrase 'filtered by trading signal type' implies the tool is appropriate when news needs to be retrieved according to a long/short/neutral signal, but it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. Usage guidance is therefore implied rather than explicit.

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