scan_signals

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains filtering behavior (e.g., min_strength threshold, direction filter) but does not specify return format, ordering, or whether results are paginated. The word 'ranked' hints at sorting, but the exact ranking logic is unclear. This is partially transparent but leaves gaps.

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 extremely concise: one line for purpose and a compact list of arguments. Every sentence provides new information, and the structure is readable and front-loaded. No fluff or repetition.

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 the absence of annotations and output schema, the description should provide enough context for correct use. It covers the tool's purpose and parameter semantics, but lacks key behavioral details like the structure of the returned feed, whether signals are sorted by strength, and any limits on results. It is adequate for simple invocation but not fully complete for an agent needing to interpret output.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so effectively by explaining each parameter: min_strength (threshold value), direction (valid enum values), and signal_types (with concrete examples). While some details like the full list of signal_types are omitted, the explanations add meaningful context beyond the bare schema.

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 'Ranked composite feed of Bitcoin signals,' which clearly states the tool's function: it returns a ranked aggregate of Bitcoin signals. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on specific signal types (e.g., get_hiring_signal, get_network_signal). The verb 'scan' and resource 'signals' are specific and unambiguous.

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 this tool is for getting a broad, composite view of multiple signal types, while sibling tools likely target individual signals. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions. Usage is inferred from 'composite' rather than directly instructed.

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