get_intel_market_alpha

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does disclose the cost (0.003 SOL via x402), a significant behavioral trait. However, it doesn't explicitly state that the tool is read-only or that payment_tx is required for actual data vs. pricing info, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and no extraneous words. It efficiently points to the data content and the payment requirement.

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?

The description, combined with full schema coverage, communicates the tool's purpose and cost. It provides some return-content clues via the listed signal types, though it doesn't describe the payment flow (e.g., omit payment_tx for pricing) or return shape; given the low complexity, it is reasonably complete.

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% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides for market and payment_tx.

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 ('Get') and resource ('cross-market alpha signals'), and enumerates content (correlation analysis, category skew, alpha opportunities). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling intel tools focused on sentiment, whale moves, or resolution forecasts.

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?

No explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus other intel tools (e.g., get_intel_sentiment). The description implies usage by naming the specific alpha signals, but does not provide exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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