get_token_signals

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the cost ($0.05 USDC via x402), which is critical for an agent to know before invoking the tool. It also mentions polling support. However, it does not describe side effects (it's a read operation, but that's implied), rate limits, errors, or the shape of the response. The cost disclosure adds value, but other behavioral aspects are unaddressed.

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 long with zero filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by supported features and the cost note. Every phrase earns its place—no repetition, no irrelevant details. This is an exemplar of conciseness and structure.

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 tool with 5 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is moderately complete. It covers the main capabilities (polling, filters, score threshold) and the cost, but it does not explain the return format or how to handle empty results or errors. An agent would understand how to invoke it but might not know what to expect in the response, which is a notable gap for a batch retrieval 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description reiterates the chain, tier, and minScore filters and explains the tier semantics, but it does not add new meaning beyond the schema. The only slight addition is the context of polling via 'since', but that is also in the schema. Therefore, the description adds minimal value over the structured parameter definitions.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Get a batch of token intelligence signals') with a concrete resource (token intelligence signals) and a precise scope (up to 20). The verb 'Get' and the plural 'signals' immediately distinguish it from the sibling 'get_token_signal' (singular), and the mention of filtering capabilities further differentiates it from other signal tools. This is a clear, non-tautological 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 provides clear context on when the tool is useful—for polling via 'since' and filtering by chain, tier, and score—but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like 'get_token_signal' or 'get_polymarket_signals'. No exclusions or alternative routing are mentioned. This is adequate but leaves the agent to infer selection based on the batch nature.

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