get_signals

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get the current signals', implying a read operation, but does not mention whether the call is safe, what data it returns, caching behavior, or rate limits. It adds no behavioral context beyond the core purpose.

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, compact sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it is under-specified, which slightly reduces the value of its brevity.

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?

The tool is simple with only one parameter, and an output schema is present, which lessens the need for return-value explanation. However, the description lacks usage context and behavioral details, especially given no annotations. It does not help an agent decide when to select this tool among 17 siblings.

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 has 0% description coverage for the single required 'ticker' parameter. The description merely says 'for a ticker', which restates the parameter name without adding meaning (e.g., format, examples, or constraints). Since the schema provides no descriptions and the description doesn't compensate, this is a clear gap.

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 'Get the current signals for a ticker', specifying both the action (get) and the resource (signals for a ticker). The parenthetical '(active setup/positioning signals)' adds specificity and differentiates it from sibling tools like get_ticker_state or get_trade_setup. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, so it's not a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states what it does, lacking any context about recommended use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The presence of many sibling tools makes this omission more significant.

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