get_token_signal

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a monetary cost ($0.01 USDC via x402) and states real-time AI analysis, which implies computation. However, it does not mention idempotency, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. It adds useful operational context but is not exhaustive, warranting a 3.

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?

While a single long sentence, it is densely packed with valuable details and front-loads the core purpose. Every clause adds information (scoring, risk, metrics, chains, cost) without redundancy. It could be split for readability, but it's efficient and well-ordered, so a 4 is justified.

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 description lists what the signal contains (scoring, risk, flags, liquidity/volume, social, backtest) and the chains covered, giving the agent a strong sense of the return content. It also notes the cost. It doesn't detail error cases or the exact output structure, but with no output schema and one optional param, the provided context is largely sufficient for a get-capability tool.

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 schema covers the only parameter 'index' with a clear description ('Specific signal index number. Omit to get the latest signal.'). The description adds no additional semantics about the parameter, so with 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is correct.

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 opens with a clear verb-resource pair 'Get a single token intelligence signal' and elaborates with specific content (hybrid scoring, risk, flags, metrics, social, backtest). It explicitly scopes to Ethereum, Base, and BSC, and the singular 'single' distinguishes it from sibling 'get_token_signals'. This is a specific, well-defined purpose.

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 implies targeting a single signal vs. the plural sibling, but does not explicitly state when to choose this over get_token_signals or other alternatives. It mentions cost as a decision factor, but lacks explicit 'use this when' or 'avoid if' guidance. The differentiation is implicit, not explicit, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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