get_arena_signal

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

Despite lacking annotations, the description discloses that it is a paid endpoint (cost consideration) and returns specific data fields. No mention of side effects or rate limits, but for a read-only operation this is sufficient.

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 sentences, no fluff. First sentence states purpose, second adds output and cost info. Efficient and well-structured.

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?

The description covers purpose, output, and cost, but lacks details on output format (types, ranges) or common usage patterns. For a simple tool this is nearly complete, but a note about output structure would help.

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% with clear descriptions for each parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond restating required fields and optional credit token, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gets a signal from a specific Strategy Arena strategy for a given asset, and specifies it returns direction, score, and confidence. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_signal and get_signal_batch, which likely cover different scopes.

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 mentions it's a paid endpoint, implying cost awareness, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like get_signal or get_signal_batch. Usage context is implied by the name but not formalized.

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