get_single_crypto_signal

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does mention the cost ($0.05 USDC) and route ('compatibility lookup route'), which is useful, but it fails to mention return format, rate limits, or any side effects. The 'compatibility' reference is vague and not explained.

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?

Two concise sentences convey the core purpose and a key constraint (cost). No redundancy, front-loaded, and every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool, the description is decent but not fully complete. It gives cost and route but omits what 'signal context' means, or how this differs from get_crypto_risk or get_crypto_forecast. Without an output schema, the return format remains unclear, making completeness only average.

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 100%, and the symbol parameter is well-described with examples. The description adds little beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. No extra semantic detail is offered.

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 action ('Retrieve') and resource ('current signal context for one crypto symbol'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_crypto_signals (plural) and get_crypto_signal_history. However, there is slight ambiguity: the schema includes non-crypto symbols (AAPL, SPY, NVDA) while the description says 'crypto symbol'.

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. Words like 'current' and 'single' imply a distinction from history or plural tools, but no direct comparison or exclusion is given. The agent gets no help deciding between this and get_crypto_signals.

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