Live paper-basket record (free)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those annotations: the basket is free, live, forward-looking, uses entries +30 minutes after launch, and holds positions. It does not specify update cadence or return shape, but the safety profile is already covered by annotations.

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 core identity and followed by the intended use. No redundant or filler text; every sentence contributes.

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?

With no output schema, the description should convey what the record contains. It explains the basket methodology and its purpose well enough for an agent to know when to call it. It could be slightly more explicit about the return format (e.g., per-launch entries vs aggregate performance), which keeps it from a 5.

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 the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter meaning, and the empty schema is consistent with a no-argument read operation.

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 resource — a live forward paper-basket record — and explains its construction (launches from proven deployers, entered +30min after launch, then held). It distinguishes itself from a raw signal feed by calling itself the 'forward public track record' of the RobinX signal, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools like robinx_signals.

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 gives a clear intended use — 'judge whether the signal is worth paying for' — but does not explicitly say when to use this instead of alternatives such as robinx_signals or robinx_verdict. Usage is implied rather than contrasted with siblings.

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