get_signature

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return payload (signature, section, doc link), which is useful, but says nothing about behavior when a name is ambiguous, missing, or has multiple overloads/signatures despite the parenthetical '(s)' hinting at multiplicity.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core action and outcome, with the examples placed at the end where they add clarity without delaying comprehension. No wasted words.

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?

For a simple one-param read-only lookup with no output schema, the core is covered, but gaps remain around ambiguous lookups, multiple signatures, and not-found behavior — details an agent would want before invoking.

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 coverage is 0% and the single 'name' parameter has no description, so the description is the only source of meaning — it compensates partially by giving examples ('CopyBuffer', 'OrderSend') that show the expected input form, but does not state whether the name must be exact, case-sensitive, or a full path.

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?

Clear specific verb ('Get') plus resource ('the exact MQL5 signature(s)') and even names the return payload (section and official doc link). It is distinguishable from sibling search_reference and explain_code by promising the exact signature rather than search results or narrative explanation, though it does not state that distinction explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the concrete examples ('CopyBuffer or OrderSend'), which signal this is a per-function lookup tool, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over search_reference or explain_code, or what to do for undocumented functions.

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