kronos_signals

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool costs money via x402, an important operational trait. However, it omits whether the tool is read-only, makes external calls, has rate limits, requires authentication, or what happens on payment failure.

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 extremely brief but repeats the tool name ('kronos signals') and adds only a vague category and a cost note. This under-specification is not effective conciseness—the space would be better used to explain purpose and parameters.

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?

This is a paid, complex market-intel tool with no output schema, no annotations, and a generic params object. The description fails to convey what signals are returned, what parameters are needed, or how it differs from sibling kronos tools. Only the cost is clear, making the description inadequate for tool selection and invocation.

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?

The input schema only defines a generic 'params' object with no inner properties, so the description must compensate by explaining what parameters to pass. It provides no parameter names, formats, required fields, or examples. The cost note is unrelated to parameters, leaving the agent completely in the dark.

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 essentially restates the tool name ('kronos signals' → 'Kronos Market Intel tool') without a specific verb or resource. It vaguely indicates a market intelligence domain but does not explain what signals are produced or how this differs from sibling kronos tools like kronos_forecast or kronos_risk.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only additional context is the cost ('Costs $0.001 USDC via x402'), which is a prerequisite rather than a usage guideline. No exclusions, conditions, or alternative tools are mentioned.

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