get_trading_signal

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 a price ('Price: $0.50'), which hints at a paid service, but doesn't cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. The description is too sparse for a tool that likely involves external data fetching and financial implications.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words. The inclusion of price is concise and relevant. It efficiently communicates essential information in a minimal format.

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 moderate complexity (financial signal generation), no annotations, and an output schema (implied by 'Returns'), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and return values, though it lacks behavioral context like rate limits or error handling. The output schema reduces the need to detail return structure, but more transparency would be beneficial for a paid service.

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 adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'symbol' is a 'Trading pair symbol' with examples (e.g., ETH/USDC), and specifies 'timeframe' options (1m, 5m, etc.) with a default of '1h' implied. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of documentation, making parameters clear and actionable.

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 trading signal for a specific symbol and timeframe.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('trading signal'), and while it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_trade_signals', the singular vs. plural naming implies a more targeted function. However, it lacks explicit sibling differentiation, preventing a perfect score.

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 prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and fails to distinguish it from similar tools like 'get_trade_signals' or 'get_forex_sentiment'. The only implicit guidance is the parameter requirements, but this is insufficient for effective tool selection.

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