get_signals

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation ('scan') and lists products and signal types, but omits details on authentication, rate limits, side effects, or return format. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 succinct with two short paragraphs: one stating the action, another listing products and clarifying the signal concept. No redundant or unnecessary information, every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description should describe what the tool returns (list, scores, etc.). It mentions scanning signals but no output structure. It also lacks details on how signals are presented or any call-to-action. This omission hinders complete understanding.

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. The description adds meaning by listing valid product values (ES, NQ, etc.) and indicating target_date refers to a date. However, it does not explain the target_date format or that it can be null, nor does it detail the default behavior. Partial compensation for schema gaps.

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 scans all 24 rare volatility signals for a given product and date, explicitly listing supported products (ES, NQ, etc.) and explaining the nature of the signals as statistically rare conditions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_calendar or get_direction, which serve different purposes.

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 usage when one wants volatility signals for a product/date, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_regime or get_pulse. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite conditions, providing only implicit guidance.

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