evaluate_trading_signal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the scoring engine, the data window split (D-60~D-30 early, D-30~D-day late), and the output metrics, but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, error handling, or response format beyond the grade/metrics.

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 focused sentences: the first states the action and required inputs/outputs, the second explains the data window. No wasted words; structure is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main inputs and window semantics plus expected output grade/return/win rate. However, it omits the optional phase parameter and does not specify the exact output structure, leaving moderate gaps for an agent.

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 schema already describes all 9 parameters with 100% coverage, including early/late definitions and units. The description adds the overall D-60 to D-day window concept, but mostly reiterates what the schema already provides, so it adds marginal value.

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 opens with 'Evaluate a trading signal using the 10-combo scoring engine,' clearly stating the verb and resource. It specifies the output (STRONG_BUY~AVOID grade with expected return and win rate) but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like score_stock or analyze_stock.

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 this tool: when you have institutional/foreign/short-selling data to evaluate a trading signal. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to avoid it or how it compares to siblings like score_stock or get_technical_strategies.

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