get_signals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool retrieves signals with a limit parameter and returns formatted data. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any required authentication, rate limits, or side effects. The description lacks transparency about how 'recent' is defined or if the tool triggers state changes.

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 remarkably concise: a single-sentence summary followed by a short explanation and clear Args/Returns sections. Every sentence provides meaningful information without redundancy or fluff.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no required inputs, an output schema exists), the description covers the essentials: what signals are, the direction indicator, and the limit parameter. It does not define 'recent' or explain any pagination, but for a straightforward read tool this is mostly adequate. An output schema is present, so return details are not required.

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 schema has zero description coverage for the 'limit' parameter, but the description adds crucial semantics: it specifies the allowed range (1–10) and the default value (5). This goes beyond the schema's minimal definition, though it could elaborate further on how the limit affects results or edge cases.

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 the tool gets recent market signals showing direction of price moves. It specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'market signals'. The explanation that signals indicate shifts toward YES or NO distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_consensus or get_markets, providing good differentiation.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_consensus, get_markets, get_opportunities, or get_settlements. There is no mention of prerequisites, contexts, or explicit recommendations, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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