evaluate_signal_quality

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

The description discloses that this is not a claim of the full live system's accuracy and is meant as a defensible evaluation layer. However, with no annotations, it lacks details on safety (e.g., read-only nature), auth needs, or rate limits.

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 short and front-loaded with purpose, followed by important caveats and parameter list. No fluff, but the structure could be tighter with bullet points for clarity.

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 simplicity (3 parameters, one required) and existence of an output schema, the description provides moderate completeness. It covers limitations but omits behavior like whether the tool modifies state or requires specific permissions.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It briefly explains lookback_months as 'historical window for checkpoints' and holding_days as 'forward return horizon for hit evaluation', but symbol is merely 'NSE symbol'. The semantics are minimal and could be more detailed.

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 evaluates signal quality, serving as a lightweight evaluation/proof layer for the signal engine's price-action core. It distinguishes itself by emphasizing honesty and defensibility, but could better differentiate from siblings like get_signal_accuracy.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description merely mentions it is an honesty tool and a proof layer, leaving usage context to inference. Given the many sibling tools, this is a significant gap.

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