tickerbot_create_custom_signal

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys the persistence and reusability of the signal ('reference by name in future scans'), which is valuable context beyond the schema. However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects (e.g., overwriting an existing signal with the same name) or any permissions required, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the core action ('Save...') and its purpose. Every word adds value, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete: it explains what is saved, how it is structured (SQL WHERE expression), and the key benefit (reusable by name in future scans). No critical information is missing for a create operation.

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 schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (`expr`, `name`, `description`), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional parameter details beyond what the schema already includes; it merely restates the role of `expr` as a SQL WHERE expression.

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 action: 'Save a SQL WHERE expression as a named custom signal' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this from scanning directly by mentioning the signal can be referenced by name in future scans, differentiating it from sibling tools like `tickerbot_scan` and `tickerbot_update_custom_signal`.

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 the use case: creating a persistent, named filter for future scans. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear. Sibling tools like `tickerbot_update_custom_signal` and `tickerbot_delete_custom_signal` exist, yet the description sufficiently hints that this is for creating a reusable signal.

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