get_signal

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes the output fields well but omits important details like authentication requirements, rate limits, idempotency, or implications of the optional credit_token parameter. The behavior is partially transparent, but gaps remain.

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 immediately states the tool's function, followed by a compact list of return fields and a source credit. No unnecessary words, and all information is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by listing all return fields. However, it lacks information on error handling, usage of credit_token beyond prepaid access, and does not mention the batch sibling for multiple symbols. It is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to use without additional context.

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 both parameters described. The main description adds value by listing example tickers and clarifying the credit_token's purpose ('bulk-prepaid access'). This enriches the schema information, justifying a score above baseline.

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 retrieves a composite trading signal for a crypto asset, listing all components (sentiment, macro regime, funding rate bias, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_sentiment and get_regime by emphasizing its composite nature.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_sentiment, get_regime, or get_signal_batch. It does not specify any prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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