get_whale_macro_signals

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose a meaningful trait most definitions omit: a per-call price of $0.1 USDC, signaling a paid/x402-style invocation. However, it says nothing about refresh cadence, data provenance, latency, or what a 'signal' actually contains, so the agent cannot anticipate the return or the payment flow.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the price tag isolated in brackets. Nothing is padded, though the second sentence is a bare cost note rather than additional guidance.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description establishes scope and cost but leaves the result shape, signal interpretation, and payment mechanics unexplained. It is minimally sufficient to decide to call it, but not to use the output confidently.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no filtering is needed since the asset classes are fixed.

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 names a specific verb ("Fetches") and a concrete resource ("real-time algorithmic whale accumulation and macro geopolitical momentum signals") scoped to Oil, Gold, and Crypto. It is clearly distinct from the prediction-market siblings, though it never states that distinction explicitly. Jargon like "algorithmic whale accumulation" is left undefined, but the asset coverage makes the purpose legible.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus get_prediction_arbitrage or search_prediction_events, nor any when-not guidance. The asset list implies a domain, but the agent must infer the use case entirely.

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