get_sample_signal

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses key behaviors: always marks sample:true, never fabricated, never reveals latest signal, may substitute with another city's past signal labeled via sampleNote, and shows exact bucket-transition shape. This is rich behavioral context far beyond basic read-only hints.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by essential behavioral details and alternatives. Every sentence contributes meaningful information—no fluff or repetition. Despite a longer first sentence, the overall structure is efficient for the complexity conveyed.

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 only 1 parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the response shape (old/new reading, buckets with yes/no/midpoint, market URL), fallback logic, and differentiation from sibling tools. An agent can select and invoke this tool correctly without needing additional details.

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 input schema already has 100% coverage for the sole 'city' parameter with a clear description ('City slug, e.g. 'toronto''). The tool description adds minimal new parameter-specific semantics; it implies city is a slug but does not elaborate on format or constraints beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 explicitly states 'Get a FREE sample Isocast signal for a city' with clear verb and resource, and further distinguishes from live signals by contrasting with buy_signals + poll_signals. It also clarifies the fallback behavior and output shape, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool (to get a sample without paying) and provides clear alternatives: 'For live entitled signals, use buy_signals + poll_signals.' It also notes no wallet/API key is needed, setting expectations for free usage.

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