Signal quality

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

The description does not contradict the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint). It adds some behavioral context by specifying the output fields, but does not disclose traits like data freshness, error handling, or auth requirements. Annotations already indicate safety, so the description provides minimal extra value.

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 a single sentence with all essential information front-loaded. It is efficiently worded with no redundancy or fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 tool's low complexity (2 parameters, output schema exists), the description is somewhat complete: it lists the output fields. However, it lacks context on how to interpret the metrics (e.g., what constitutes a 'good' Sharpe ratio) or when results might be empty. It is adequate but not rich.

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 100%, so both parameters are already described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning for the parameters themselves (e.g., it does not explain what 'signal_type' defaults to or its possible values). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool returns a 'signal validation envelope' for an asset, listing the specific metrics (Sharpe ratio, win rate, sample size, reliability tier). This gives a clear verb and resource, but it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like 'get_signal' or 'get_coin_sentiment'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when NOT to use it, or how it compares to sibling tools such as 'get_signal' or 'get_coin_sentiment'.

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