prediction_signals

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It mentions 'paper trading' which implies a simulated environment, but it does not explicitly confirm read-only operation, data freshness, or limitations. The lack of an action verb also makes it unclear whether this modifies state or simply retrieves data.

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 a single concise sentence with clear front-loading of the core concept. It contains no filler words and efficiently conveys the essence of the tool.

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 existence of three different views (stats, trades, prediction) and no output schema, the description gives a high-level overview but doesn't clarify what each view returns or how the signal feed relates to the views. This is adequate for a simple read tool but not exhaustive.

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 tool description adds no additional parameter explanation; it doesn't mention 'view' or 'limit' at all. The schema's own descriptions are minimal, but the enum values and limit default provide some context.

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 indicates the tool provides prediction market signals, listing specific components like paper trading performance, active trades, and signal feed. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on prediction market analytics. However, it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., fetch, list), making the action slightly implicit.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not state use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The schema hints at different views, but the description doesn't explain when to choose this over other trading-related siblings.

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