signal_history_monthly

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: the archive is permanent and never deleted, rows are aggregated, months with fewer than 5 signals are excluded, no authentication is required, the rate limit is 60 req/min, and responses are cached for 5 minutes. This is unusually thorough behavioral disclosure.

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 dense and informative, front-loading the core purpose and then listing fields, exclusions, and operational details. It loses a point for the redundant opening: 'Analyst signal performance permanent monthly archive — Returns the permanent monthly archive of analyst signal performance.'

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?

Even though there is no output schema, the description fully compensates by listing the exact row fields, winRate format, avgReturn basis, analyst IDs, exclusion threshold, authentication requirements, rate limit, and cache policy. An agent has everything it needs to decide whether and how to call the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains that analystId is an optional filter and omitting it returns all analysts. The description adds a concrete example (?analystId=chain_hawk) but does not meaningfully extend the parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 the tool returns a permanent monthly archive of analyst signal performance with a precise one-row-per-analyst-per-month structure. It is specific about the resource and aggregation source, but it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or explain how it differs from tools like analyst_monthly_performance or analyst_archive.

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 context suggesting this is the historical monthly view, aggregated after signal_history ages out, and explains the optional analystId filter and the minimum-signal exclusion. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the many sibling history/archive tools, and no exclusions or alternative routing are given.

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