Get trading signals

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the tool never places orders and requires a PRO API key, revealing its read-only nature and authentication needs. This goes beyond basic descriptions but could mention rate limits or other operational details.

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 concise, using only a few sentences to convey purpose, behavior, prerequisites, and examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or fluff. The structure is well-organized, with examples embedded naturally.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context: it explains strategy contexts (TWO_BUCKET, SINGLE_BUCKET) and stake suggestion. It does not describe the exact output format, but the examples imply a list of signals. Overall, it is nearly complete for an informational tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add further meaning beyond what the schema provides for the parameters; the schema already describes the account enum, bankroll range, and only_with_signals boolean. Thus the parameter semantics are adequately covered by the schema.

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 retrieves actionable BUY/SELL signals with Kelly-criterion bet sizing for tweet-count markets. It provides concrete examples of strategy contexts (TWO_BUCKET, SINGLE_BUCKET) and explicitly distinguishes it from order-placing tools by stating it never places orders, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 specifies a critical prerequisite (PRO API key) and the failure mode (HTTP 402) if missing. It also clarifies the tool is informational only and not financial advice. While it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like get_predictions or analyze_portfolio, the unique focus on actionable signals with bet sizing provides implicit guidance.

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