Single-market smart-money verdict

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden. It discloses the cost (~$0.01) and hints at the output (edge-verified smart flow, direction, confidence). Yet it does not state whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, or error behavior, leaving significant behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 extremely concise with no filler words. It front-loads the cost and scope, then explains the verdict and ends with the parameter. Every word contributes value, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers cost and output essence but omits critical framing for the sole parameter (condition_id) and any boundary conditions like error cases or data freshness. This leaves an agent uncertain about how to procure and correctly use the required input.

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 description only mentions 'Param: condition_id' without explaining what a condition_id represents or how to obtain one. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this lack of semantic context forces the agent to guess the parameter's meaning, failing to compensate for the schema's silence.

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 indicates the tool's function: providing a smart-money verdict for a single market, using terms like 'VERDICT' and 'decision for one market'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'signals_daily' and 'signals_consensus' via the 'single-market' scope, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'generate'.

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 through 'single-market' and notes the PAID cost, which is a usage consideration. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. Context is present but not fully elaborated.

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