list_signals

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool lists 'active' signals, requires an env var, and supports filtering and pagination. It does not explicitly state read-only or non-destructive behavior, nor rate limits, but the read nature is inferred. Adequate but not explicit.

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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections, front-loading purpose and requirement. It is somewhat verbose with examples, but clear and organized. Minor conciseness improvements possible.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all parameters and explicitly lists return fields (signals array, count, pagination). It does not mention error handling or edge cases, but is otherwise complete for a list endpoint.

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%, so description must compensate. It provides detailed parameter descriptions including defaults, examples, constraints (e.g., limit max 500), and context (e.g., confidence_min range). This adds significant value 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 clearly states 'List active spot arbitrage signals with optional filters', specifying a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_live_signal and get_signal_for_instance by focusing on listing multiple signals with filters.

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 mentions the required REFINEX_API_KEY env var and explains optional filters and pagination. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_live_signal for real-time signals), leaving the usage context somewhat implied.

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