get_trade_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 mentions the tool returns 'trading signals with entry/exit recommendations and confidence scores,' which gives some output context, but lacks critical details like rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or whether it's a read-only operation. The 'Price: $0.75' hint at cost is useful but insufficient for comprehensive transparency.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized, with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. The 'Price' note is concise and relevant. While efficient, the lack of usage guidance slightly reduces its overall effectiveness.

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 complexity of trading signals and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose and parameters but misses behavioral traits and usage guidelines. With no annotations and incomplete parameter guidance, it falls short of being fully adequate for safe and effective use.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining 'token' as 'Optional token address or symbol to focus on' and 'chain' as 'Blockchain network' with options listed, which clarifies beyond the schema's basic titles. However, it doesn't fully detail parameter interactions or default behaviors, leaving gaps in understanding.

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's purpose: 'Get AI-powered trading signals and market recommendations.' It specifies the action (get) and resource (trading signals) with the qualifier 'AI-powered.' However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'get_trading_signal' (singular vs. plural), leaving some ambiguity about their distinct roles.

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 doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_trading_signal' or 'get_arbitrage_opportunities,' nor does it specify prerequisites, ideal contexts, or exclusions for its use.

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