check_signals_now

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool triggers evaluation and returns results, but fails to mention side effects (e.g., state changes, logging), authorization requirements, or rate limits. This is insufficient for a mutation-like operation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and result, with no extraneous information. Every sentence is essential and concise.

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 has no parameters and an output schema (not provided), the description adequately covers the purpose and return format. However, it could mention whether the results are persisted or available for later retrieval, especially given the many sibling tools.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. As per guidelines, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable since there are none.

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: manually triggering evaluation of all active signals against current market data and returning results. It distinguishes from siblings like list_signals (which lists without triggering) and backtest_signal (which evaluates historically).

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 on-demand use but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like automated evaluation, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. No guidance is provided for when not to use this tool.

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