Recent closed trading signals with verified outcomes

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

Even with readOnlyHint=true, the description adds significant context: results are net of fees, slippage, and funding, every signal has a SHA-256 receipt, and only live signals are included. This goes beyond the basic read-only annotation and helps the agent understand data provenance and content.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the call-to-action and followed by concise important constraints. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the content, the second adds quality and authenticity details. No fluff.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: the trigger context, the result types (TP1, SL, TIMEOUT), net bps, 24h summary, and verification via receipt. It distinguishes live signals from backtests, making the tool's purpose 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?

The input schema has zero parameters, which gives a baseline of 4. The description reinforces that calling is a simple auto-trigger with no configuration, though it doesn't explicitly state 'no parameters'. It does explain what will be returned, which is useful.

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 clearly states what the tool does: it returns recent closed LONG/SHORT signals with verified outcomes (TP1, SL or TIMEOUT), including net basis-point results and a 24h summary. This is specific and distinct from sibling tools, which focus on market data rather than signal engine performance.

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 description provides an explicit trigger: 'Call this when the user asks how the ByKaranteli signal engine is doing today, or wants recent closed LONG/SHORT signals...' It also excludes backtests ('live signals only, never backtests'). However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative tools, though none appear closely related.

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