review_signal_anomaly

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It lists returned fields and includes a cost disclaimer ($0.07 USDC), which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state if the tool is read-only or if there are side effects. Since it is a scoring function, the lack of explicit read-only hint is a minor gap.

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 three sentences long, with the first sentence stating the core purpose, the second listing return values, and the third adding legal and cost information. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must cover return values. While it lists return fields (anomaly_score, anomaly_level, etc.), it does not explain their types or structure (e.g., what are 'drivers' or 'component scores'?). Also, the 'features' parameter is a complex nested object with many possible keys; the description provides no guidance beyond the schema examples.

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 adds minimal additional meaning beyond the schema, only summarizing the parameters. It does not clarify the format or allowed values for the 'features' nested object, which is a complex parameter.

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 what the tool does: 'Score a market signal feature set for unusual conditions before downstream analysis.' It specifies the verb (score), resource (market signal feature set), and context (before downstream analysis). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_crypto_risk or get_crypto_signals by focusing on anomaly detection in feature sets.

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 implies when to use ('before downstream analysis') but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives among sibling tools. No comparison with tools like audit_trade_decision or check_trade_preflight, which are closely related.

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