get_gold_signals

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

With no annotations, the description provides some behavioral context: pricing ($0.10), ordering (challenge-first by default), and that it returns both signals and inventory. However, it does not disclose idempotency, side effects, or rate limits. The description adds value beyond the endpoint name but lacks full transparency.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, pricing, and default behavior. No unnecessary words, though it could be structured as two sentences 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 has 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It explains default ordering and pricing but does not describe the return format or pagination. The term 'compatibility tool' is ambiguous.

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%, so the description does not need to add much. It repeats the q parameter description from the schema but does not add new meaning for 'limit' or 'state'. The tool description does not compensate for any gaps.

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 is for getting Ripple Signals and Ripple Path inventory, with a specific verb ('get') and resource ('gold signals'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_gold_brief' and 'search_gold_inventory' by focusing on signals and inventory retrieval.

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 usage (for retrieving signals) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'search_gold_inventory' or 'get_gold_brief'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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