analysts_signals_all

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure: public/free-tier, no auth, no parameters, last 7 days, 200-signal cap per analyst, grouping by analystId, and null semantics for outcome/returnPct. It even documents the response envelope, so an agent can predict the result shape.

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 organized and front-loaded, moving from purpose to limits to response shape to alternative routes. It contains minor redundancy ('last 7 days' and 'free-tier' appear twice), but every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given zero annotations and no output schema, the description covers everything needed to select and invoke the tool: scope, limits, auth, response fields, and the subset alternative. The only omitted details are rate limits, which are nonessential for this simple no-parameter endpoint.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description explicitly confirms 'No query parameters needed,' which is sufficient; no per-parameter detail is possible or required.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the last 7 days of signals for all 10 analysts grouped by analystId in a single response.' It also names the alternative subset endpoint, which distinguishes this aggregate tool from analysts_signals and similar sibling endpoints.

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 identifies when to use the tool ('ideal for AI agents that need a cross-analyst comparison without 10 round-trips') and when not to ('To fetch a subset of analysts, use GET /api/public/analysts/signals?id=...'). It also states the operational conditions: free tier, no authentication, no query parameters.

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