analysts_signals

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses that no authentication is required, that depth is free-tier limited to 7 days and 200 signals per analyst, and it gives response shapes and signal field semantics.

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 long but dense, with the core behavior and id syntax front-loaded before response details. Minor extras like 'MCP-compatible' and the repeated analyst id list keep it from being maximally concise.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema public read tool, the description covers authentication, data limits, response structure, and signal fields. The truncated 'create' field list and lack of error-handling or invalid-id guidance are the only notable gaps.

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 already documents the id parameter at 100% coverage, so the baseline is satisfied. The description adds meaningful value by explaining comma-separated multi-analyst usage, concrete id examples, analyst identities, and the response difference between single and multi-id calls.

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 verb and resource: it 'Returns the last 7 days of signals' for one or more analysts. It also differentiates from the sibling all-analysts endpoint, making its scope unmistakable.

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 explicitly explains when to use a single id versus a comma-separated list, and tells the agent to use the 'all' endpoint to fetch all 10 analysts at once. It does not contrast with every analyst-related sibling, but the core single/multi decision is clearly covered.

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