get_signal_meta

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses return contents (pricing/payment metadata, optional latestSeq), a key behavioral exclusion (no signal rows), and access requirements (free, no wallet/API key). This covers the main behaviors an agent needs, though it doesn't mention potential rate limits or error conditions. Still, the disclosure is transparent and valuable.

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 two sentences with a clear front-loaded main clause, details, a negative exclusion, and access prerequisites. Every clause adds value: the field list, the optional behavior, the NEVER statement, and the free/no-auth note. No fluff.

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 tool is simple (1 optional parameter, no output schema), and the description fully covers purpose, parameter usage, behavioral exclusions, and access constraints. It is self-contained and leaves no significant gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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% for the single optional 'city' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real semantics by explaining that passing a city includes its latestSeq, which goes beyond the schema's generic 'Optional city slug'. This clarifies the parameter's effect and justifies 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 uses specific verbs and resources: 'Get Isocast pricing and payment metadata' and lists exact fields (unit price, minimum spend, currency, network, payTo, volume tiers). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by stating 'NEVER returns any signal rows', which sets it apart from get_sample_signal. The purpose is 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?

The description provides clear context: it explains the optional 'city' parameter to get latestSeq and explicitly states exclusions ('NEVER returns any signal rows'). It also notes no auth required. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state 'use this for metadata', so it falls short of a 5 by not providing direct when/when-not comparisons.

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