explain_signal

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds critical behavioral context: live reconstruction, no caching, potential difference from stored signal, plan requirement, and specific error codes. No contradiction with annotations.

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 fairly concise for the amount of information conveyed, and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it is somewhat verbose with the detailed reconstruction list; could be slightly more streamlined.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description thoroughly explains what the response contains (cluster buyers/sellers, excluded trades, ratios) and all error scenarios. It fully equips an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 100%, but the description adds value by explaining that omitting 'date' retrieves the most recent signal, and by detailing error conditions for invalid date. This goes beyond the schema's descriptions.

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: 'Explain why a signal fired', detailing the specific resource (signal) and the elements it reconstructs (insiders, trades, exclusions, criteria). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'get_signals' which is for scanning many companies.

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?

Explicitly says when to use ('audit or debug a specific signal') and when not to ('rather than to scan many companies, use GET /v1/signals for that'). Also mentions plan requirement (Business plan+) and error conditions (404, 400).

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