top_signals

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds modest context: the results are a current snapshot, sorted highest first, and constrained by limit/min_score, but does not disclose deeper behavior such as data age or scoring source.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by compact, scannable parameter lines. There is no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 a simple ranked-list tool with an output schema, the description is complete: the agent knows what it returns, how it is ordered, the parameter constraints, and the sibling to use for underlying reasons.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the Args section fully compensates: limit is described with range (1-25) and default (10), and min_score is described as a 0-100 threshold. This adds real meaning beyond the bare type/default fields in 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 first sentence states a specific, scannable purpose: returning 'the strongest composite scores right now, highest first.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling ticker_signal by directing reason-seeking users there.

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?

It explicitly says when not to use this tool and where to go instead: 'use ticker_signal for the reasons.' It does not discuss other siblings like search or leaderboard, but the most confusable alternative is handled.

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