get_signals_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the required REFINEX_API_KEY, describes the return structure (summary, by_cloud, ttl, next_update), and mentions cache validity. It does not cover error handling or rate limits, but overall provides solid behavioral context.

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 structured with sections: overall purpose, env var requirement, parameter list, return details, and an example query. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

With 4 optional parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description covers purpose, parameters, return structure, and usage context. It lacks details on error handling or rate limits, but is mostly complete for an aggregation 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 coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions in the JSON schema. The description fully compensates by listing all parameters (cloud, region, min_savings, confidence_min) with clear descriptions and defaults, adding significant meaning beyond the 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 states 'Get aggregate summary of current AWS spot opportunities,' which clearly identifies the action (get aggregate summary) and resource (AWS spot opportunities). Sibling tools like list_signals, get_live_signal, and get_signal_for_instance focus on individual signals or listings, making this tool distinct.

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 includes a clear use case: 'Use this for dashboards or periodic CI checks: How many high-confidence deals exist right now, and in which regions?' It also mentions the required environment variable. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives among siblings.

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