AgentDataHub Gateway

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It clearly discloses the key behavioral trait: without payment, an x402 402 payment challenge is returned, and wallet enables the free trial/paid path. It does not mention error/return formats, but the payment behavior is a material and well-communicated detail.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence conveys purpose, the optional wallet parameter, and the payment-challenge behavior without waste. Every clause earns its place.

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 two-parameter fetch tool with no output schema/annotations, the description is adequate but not fully complete. It explains the payment gate but does not describe the successful response shape or how to discover the id (e.g., via list_products), leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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 50%: wallet is described, id is not. The description adds payment and trial meaning for wallet and implies id identifies the data product, but id's format and requirement remain under-specified. It partially compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 states a specific action ('Fetch a data product') with a clear resource and the relevant id/wallet context. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_product_info or list_products, but 'fetch' and the payment challenge make the data-delivery purpose clear.

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 gives usage context around wallet and payment ('Pass wallet... to use the free trial / paid access; without payment... challenge is returned'), but it does not state when to prefer fetch_data over sibling tools or list exclusions. Usage is implied rather than explicitly contrasted.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses that the tool is 'Free' and mentions the inclusion of payment instructions (x402, USDC), but does not describe the response format or any permissions needed. For a simple get operation, this is adequate but not rich.

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 efficient sentence with an additional 'Free.' indicator. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and cost, with no redundant or filler content.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the user receives: product details and payment instructions. It could clarify the structure of the response, but given the tool's simplicity, it is sufficiently complete.

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 already fully describes the 'id' parameter with an example ('econ-fred'), and the description only repeats 'by id.' Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no additional semantic value, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 function: 'Get details and payment instructions... for one product by id.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('product'), and the scope ('one product by id') distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_products.

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—when you have a specific product id—which differentiates it from listing tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusions, so it's clear but not exhaustive.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the listing is 'Free' and what fields are returned, which are important behavioral traits. However, it does not mention potential pagination, rate limits, or any response format details beyond field names.

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, front-loaded sentence with no superfluous words. Every element (what, where, fields, free) is purposeful and immediately useful.

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 parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool returns and that it is free. It lacks details like ordering or size limits, but these are minor for a catalog listing and do not impede correct use.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema already fully communicates the input. The description does not need to add parameter meaning, and it appropriately focuses on the return payload.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'all pay-per-call data products on AgentDatum' and explicitly states the output fields (id, price USD, description). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_product_info, which likely targets a single product.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any use cases, exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer that this is for browsing the catalog.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it adds meaningful behavioral context: the output is rule-based and 'zero hallucination,' China carbon data may be missing when the source is unavailable, the response is in Chinese, and there is a price of 0.05 USDC via x402. It could disclose more about failure modes, but this is strong coverage for a read-style signal tool.

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 compact and front-loaded with the tool's identity and purpose, then packs in content, reliability, suitability, and pricing. The mixed English/Chinese phrasing is a bit dense, but every sentence adds useful information.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description explains what the agent will receive: a Chinese briefing combining raw data and plain-language conclusions from three sources. It also covers pricing and the optional wallet credit tier. The exact payment flow could be more explicit, but the tool is still safely selectable and invocable from this description.

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% because the only parameter, an optional wallet address, is fully documented in the schema. The tool description does not repeat the parameter, which is fine given the schema handles it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a concrete resource ('Finance Signal Bundle') and a specific action ('get live computed signal'), then details the three bundled sources: cross-asset momentum, US stock fundamentals, and China carbon market. It is clear and specific, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling signal tools.

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 gives clear context for when to use it: when an agent wants one merged, multi-source Chinese briefing with raw data and plain-language conclusions. It says it is 'suitable for agents to quickly consume structured intelligence,' but it does not state when not to use it or name a preferred alternative.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does mention the cost (Price 0.05 via x402) and free tier (wallet), which is beyond schema info. However, it lacks details on the exact response format, data freshness, or any potential side effects. The truncated sentence ("<=25 i") also leaves part of the threshold behavior unclear.

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 reasonably sized but contains a truncated sentence ("<=25 i") and a somewhat run-on structure. It starts with a generic 'Finance Signal Bundle' prefix that could be trimmed. The information is not presented as efficiently as it could be, but it's not overly verbose.

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 one optional param and no output schema, so the description should explain what is returned. It indicates the value is a percentage and gives interpretation thresholds, which is helpful. However, it does not specify the exact return format (e.g., JSON structure, timestamp), nor does it fully complete the threshold explanation due to truncation. With no output schema, the description should provide more complete return info.

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 one optional param 'wallet' with a complete description covering the free tier, so schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable given the schema already handles it, hence baseline 3.

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 it provides a live computed altcoin season index, with specific details about the calculation (percentage of top 50 coins excluding stablecoins outperforming BTC over 30 days) and thresholds (>=75 indicates altseason). This clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling signal tools.

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?

It implies when to use (to get altcoin season data) but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative tools. Given the large number of sibling signals, explicit guidance would be beneficial, but the description's clarity about the metric provides some implicit usage context.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully names the output components and mentions a 0.01 price via x402, but the sentence is garbled ('Turns ra Price 0.01') and does not clarify read-only status, return shape, or authentication behavior.

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 main signal description is front-loaded, but the final sentence is truncated and confusing ('Turns ra Price 0.01 via x402'), and the opening label 'Finance Signal Bundle' is redundant. The definition is compact but not cleanly structured.

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 tool with zero required parameters and no output schema, the description gives a reasonable sense of what the signal contains and mentions a cost. However, the malformed pricing sentence and lack of market-specific scope leave the agent somewhat uncertain, and the tool name is doing important disambiguation work the description should handle.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single optional wallet parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no extra meaning about how the wallet affects free credits or the call itself.

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 states it returns a live computed signal with 30-period percentile rank, 4-period momentum, and a plain-language trend verdict, so it is not a tautology. However, it only says 'financial markets' and never names A-share indices, leaving the domain to be inferred from the tool name. It also does not distinguish this tool from the many similar processed_* siblings.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as processed_a_share_quote, processed_a_share_top, or signal_global_indices. The generic label 'Finance Signal Bundle' gives no selection criteria or exclusions, so agents must guess based on the tool name.

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

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 does reveal that the tool computes a live signal and mentions a price of 0.01 via x402, but the pricing sentence is incomplete/typo-ridden ('Turns ra Price'), and there is no explanation of output format, latency, access requirements, or whether this is a charged 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 short but not cleanly structured. The first clause is reasonably front-loaded, but the trailing 'Turns ra Price 0.01 via x402 (USDC on Base)' is incoherent and appears to be a broken or truncated sentence, which undermines clarity rather than adding concise value.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It omits what the returned signal looks like, which market/asset class it actually covers, and how the x402 payment relates to invocation. An agent would struggle to reliably select or call this tool correctly based on the provided text.

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 100% description coverage for the single optional wallet parameter, so the schema already explains its meaning. The description adds no parameter-level guidance; it does not even mention the wallet or X-Wallet free tier, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "get live computed signal" over a "Processed analytics layer" with percentile rank, momentum, and trend verdict. However, it never explicitly says this is for A-share quotes (only the tool name does), and the phrase "Turns ra Price 0.01 via x402" is garbled and confusing.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the many similarly named siblings like processed_stock_quote, processed_a_share_indices, or signal_stock_report. No use-case boundaries, exclusions, or alternative routing are provided, which is a serious gap given the large sibling list.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions a garbled 'Turns ra Price 0.01 via x402 (USDC on Base)' which hints at payment behavior but is unclear; it does not disclose authentication, access tiers, rate limits, return structure, or side effects beyond producing a signal.

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 short and front-loaded with the signal components, but it is poorly structured: 'Turns ra Price 0.01 via x402' appears truncated or garbled, and the second sentence fails to clearly communicate its intended meaning. Conciseness is not a substitute for clarity.

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?

With no output schema and a tool name implying a specific 'A-share top' use case, the description should explain what the returned signal actually represents. It lists computation components but omits context about asset universe, ranking semantics, pricing, or integration requirements, leaving the agent under-informed for correct invocation.

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%, and the wallet parameter is already well explained with free-tier credit details. The main description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema fully carries that burden, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a concrete action (get live computed signal) and lists signal components: 30-period percentile rank, 4-period momentum, and a trend verdict. However, it never connects the tool name 'a_share_top' to A-share context or a 'top' list, and the generic phrase 'financial markets' makes the resource ambiguous among many processed_* siblings.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of the many sibling processed_* or signal_* tools. No alternative tools, exclusions, or conditions are mentioned, so an agent must infer selection purely from the name and vague description.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It mentions real-time delivery and a price of 0.01 via x402, which are useful behavioral cues. However, it does not state whether any payment is required upfront, what happens without a bound wallet, or the format of the returned data.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence efficiently describes the data delivered; the second adds use case and pricing. It loses a point due to the typo 'shipping d Price'.

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 (1 optional param, no output schema), the description covers the essential return values (BDI level and % changes), use case, and cost. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool, though it could mention the response format.

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 100% for the single optional 'wallet' parameter, which is well described in the schema. The description adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 it 'get live computed signal' for the Baltic Dry Index (BDI), including the specific data points: level and daily/monthly/yearly % change. This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like processed_commodity or processed_net_liquidity.

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?

It explicitly identifies the use case: 'A leading indicator for global trade and bulk commodity shipping.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context: 'no key' (no API key needed), pricing via x402 (payment required), and wallet-based free tier. This goes beyond a simple data-fetch description, though it does not describe output format or side effects. The garbled 'A sample of emerging ma' slightly reduces clarity.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose, but it contains a truncated, confusing phrase ('A sample of emerging ma Price 0.01') that undermines clarity. It could be more concise and well-structured if completed and cleaned up, but as written it is somewhat awkward.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description lists the specific data returned (Selic, IPCA, USDBRL), which helps. It also includes pricing and access details. However, it does not describe the format of the result, error handling, or how the payment integration works beyond a vague x402 reference, leaving gaps for a complete understanding.

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 one optional parameter 'wallet' with a description covering its free-tier purpose. Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any additional meaning about the wallet parameter beyond what the schema states, so no bonus is warranted.

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: 'get live computed signal: Brazil macro snapshot' with specific data points (Selic, IPCA, USDBRL). This differentiates it from sibling tools by focusing on Brazil-specific macro data, meeting the bar for a specific verb+resource+scope.

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 usage for Brazil macro signals by naming the specific indicators, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or provide exclusions. No alternative tools are mentioned, so it relies on the reader to infer context from the name and content.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context: data is live/computed, the analytics performed, and a pricing/payment mechanism via x402. However, the final sentence is unclear ('Turns raw Price 0.01') and the description does not mention freshness, failure modes, or return shape beyond the listed fields.

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 text is compact and front-loads the core purpose, but the second sentence is an awkward fragment that is hard to interpret. The colons in the first sentence make the structure slightly run-on.

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 tool with one optional parameter, the description lists the returned analytics and mentions cost/payment, which is helpful. Yet with no output schema and a large sibling family, it should more clearly identify the asset and the exact x402 behavior to be fully complete.

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 100% for the single optional wallet parameter, and the description adds no parameter-specific details. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already fully explains the parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('get') and clearly identifies the output: a live computed signal built from on-chain crypto with percentile rank, momentum, and a trend verdict. The 'detail' scope is inferable from the tool name, though the description itself does not explicitly say 'bitcoin' or distinguish it from sibling btc tools like processed_btc_onchain.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as processed_btc_onchain, processed_btc_hashrate, or processed_chain_btc. The phrase 'Finance Signal Bundle' implies a signal use case, but no alternative or exclusion is stated.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal that the tool computes live percentile rank, momentum, and a trend verdict, and it seems to reference a 0.01 USDC payment via x402. However, the cost sentence is ungrammatical, and there is no detail on output shape, auth requirements, or side effects.

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 short, but it opens with redundant brand text and uses a long colon chain. The final sentence is grammatically incomplete, so the text is not cleanly structured despite being brief.

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 single optional parameter and lack of output schema keep complexity low, but the missing resource name is a critical gap: an agent cannot tell this feeds on BTC hashrate without relying on the tool name. It also does not clearly describe the return payload or the payment behavior, so the description is incomplete for confident invocation.

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 already documents the single optional wallet parameter, including the free-tier credit distinction; schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

It identifies the operation as 'get live computed signal' and lists concrete analytics (30-period percentile rank, 4-period momentum, trend verdict), which is more than a tautology. However, it never names the actual resource—BTC hashrate—and instead says only 'on-chain crypto', leaving the tool hard to distinguish from many siblings. The garbled 'Turns raw Price 0.01 via x402' further muddies what the tool actually produces.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this tool rather than the dozens of processed_* and signal_* siblings, nor any exclusions. The phrase 'Finance Signal Bundle' hints at a category, not a selection rule.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only vaguely discloses computed signal parameters (30-period percentile, 4-period momentum, trend verdict). The phrase 'Turns raw Price 0.01 via x402 (USDC on Base)' is ambiguous — it could indicate cost or data source but is not clearly explained, so it harms transparency more than it helps.

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 short but poorly structured: the second sentence 'Turns raw Price 0.01 via x402 (USDC on Base)' is cryptic and seemingly out of place, and the colon-heavy first sentence crams unrelated concepts together. Every sentence does not earn its place.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It never identifies that the tool is about BTC mempool fees, does not clarify the output format or the meaning of the cost/access text, and provides no explanation of the wallet parameter's role beyond what the schema already says.

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% for the single optional wallet parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description does not mention the wallet parameter at all and adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 says 'get live computed signal' over 'on-chain crypto' but never mentions mempool fees, Bitcoin, or anything that matches the tool name. It lists percentile rank, momentum, and trend verdict, but the specific resource is missing and the garbled 'raw Price 0.01' makes it more confusing. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like processed_btc_onchain or processed_btc_detail.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no conditions. The description is entirely generic and offers no decision support for an agent choosing among the many processed_* siblings.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints at a paid access model ('0.01 via x402 (USDC on Base)') and free-tier wallet credits, but the payment sentence is malformed and does not clarify rate limits, read-only behavior, failure behavior, or what exactly happens at execution.

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 first sentence is reasonably concise and front-loaded with the signal components. However, the second sentence is an unclear fragment ('Turns raw Price 0.01 via x402') that appears truncated or typo-ridden, hurting structural quality.

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 tool with a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description lists key returned signal components, which is helpful. But it fails to clearly explain the payment/cost mechanism and does not describe the output structure or any additional execution context, leaving meaningful gaps.

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%, so the schema already fully documents the optional wallet parameter and its free-tier effect. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the appropriate baseline is 3.

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 identifies a live computed signal over on-chain crypto and lists concrete outputs (30-period percentile rank, 4-period momentum, trend verdict), which separates it from many raw-data siblings. However, the garbled phrase 'Turns raw Price 0.01 via x402' muddies the resource and prevents 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?

There is no guidance about when to select this tool versus the many sibling processed_btc_* tools or other signal tools. The description explains what it computes but never states when to use it, when not to use it, or which alternative fits a different need.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It does disclose that the tool computes a live signal and names the output components, and it hints at payment via x402 on USDC/Base. But it does not explain authentication requirements, rate limits, possible side effects, or return shape, and the pricing sentence is ambiguous enough to add confusion rather than clarity.

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 short, but poorly structured: the opening 'Finance Signal Bundle - get live computed signal' is redundant, and the final sentence 'Turns raw Price 0.01 via x402 (USDC on Base)' is truncated or grammatically broken. Compactness is not enough when key phrases are unclear.

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 tool with no output schema, the description should fully explain what the signal means and how to use the tool. It names three output metrics and mentions x402 pricing, but it fails to clarify what resource 'pools' refers to, how payment binds to the optional wallet parameter, or how this tool differs from the large family of processed_* tools. Important context is missing.

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 single optional wallet parameter is already fully documented in the schema, which covers 100% of parameters. The description adds nothing about the wallet parameter or payment flow, so the baseline of 3 applies: the schema does the heavy lifting and the description neither helps nor hurts parameter understanding.

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 states that the tool gets a live computed financial signal and lists concrete outputs: 30-period percentile rank, 4-period momentum, and a trend verdict. However, it never states what 'btc_pools' refers to or that this is specifically about BTC, and it is not differentiated from the many processed_btc_* or signal_* siblings. The garbled closing phrase 'Turns raw Price 0.01 via x402 (USDC on Base)' further muddies the core purpose.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as processed_btc_onchain, processed_btc_detail, or signal_* tools. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or use-case conditions, so an agent would have to guess which of many similar tools is appropriate.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the data source (mempool.space, real-time, no key) but introduces an unexplained pricing element ('Price 0.01 via x402 (USDC on Base)') without clarifying execution behavior, side effects, or return format. The truncated 'unconfirmed tran' adds further ambiguity.

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 run-on sentence that mixes signal metrics with a pricing note, making it difficult to parse. The phrase 'unconfirmed tran Price' appears truncated and the structure is messy, not concise or well-front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values; listing metrics partially does so, but the final metric is cut off and no units or structure are given. It also fails to explain the wallet parameter's role in pricing or the x402 mechanism, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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 covers the only parameter (wallet) with a description, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the schema's adequate documentation.

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 it provides a live computed BTC network health signal with a specific verb 'get' and lists concrete metrics (total hashrate, mining difficulty, mempool backlog, recommended fees). However, the trailing 'Price 0.01 via x402' confuses the purpose and doesn't cleanly distinguish it from other processed_* siblings beyond naming the BTC chain.

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 this tool is for BTC network health data by listing relevant metrics and stating 'mempool.space real-time, no key'. It does not mention when not to use it or point to alternative tools, providing only implicit guidance for selection.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does a reasonably good job: it states that this is a processed/live analytics layer, lists the computed outputs, and discloses the 0.01 USDC payment via x402. It does not go into depth about return structure or rate limits, but the read-only 'get live computed signal' framing plus the methodology is meaningful.

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 reasonably short and front-loads the core purpose, but the structure is clunky with multiple colons, and 'T Price 0.01 via x402' appears garbled or incomplete. The pricing information is useful, but the phrasing undermines clarity.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, output components, and pricing. It is incomplete as a standalone selection aid because it never explicitly names China CPI as the underlying macroeconomic indicator and does not explain the x402 payment flow, but the name and schema fill in some gaps.

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 only parameter, wallet, has a 100% schema description covering its optionality, format, and free-tier credit implications. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as a live computed signal generator and specifies the analytic components: 30-period percentile rank, 4-period momentum, and a trend verdict. However, 'macroeconomic indicators' is generic and does not mention China CPI directly; the tool name carries some of that burden, and no sibling differentiation is offered.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the many processed_* or signal_* siblings. The description explains what the tool computes, but not the conditions that would lead an agent to select processed_china_cpi over alternatives such as processed_china_trade or signal_econ_global.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the output is a computed signal and references x402/USDC, which hints at payment behavior, but the sentence is ambiguous ('Turns raw series int Price 0.01 via x402') and does not clarify pricing, auth, rate limits, or side effects.

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 short and starts with the core action, but the second sentence is cryptic and contains a likely typo ('int' instead of 'into' or 'into Price 0.01'). It is compact but not every clause earns its place.

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 there is no output schema, the description does list expected signal components, which helps. However, it fails to clearly explain the data source ('trade'), the payment/pricing flow, or the actual return contract, leaving important context ambiguous for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.

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 already fully documents the single optional wallet parameter, including the free-tier credit details, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which means the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states a clear action ('get live computed signal') and identifies the resource ('processed analytics layer over trade') plus the concrete output components (30-period percentile rank, 4-period momentum, trend verdict). However, it does not name the 'china' scope explicitly and 'trade' is ambiguous, so it is clear but not fully self-sufficient.

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 given on when to use this tool instead of one of the many processed_* siblings. The phrase 'live computed signal' implies a use case, but there are no exclusions, alternatives, or selection criteria.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose the main computed outputs and appears to mention a 0.01 x402/USDC cost point, which is behaviorally relevant. However, the cost sentence is garbled and unreliable, and the description does not cover auth expectations, rate limits, or side effects, leaving transparency partial.

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 front-loaded with a clear label and a concise list of signal components, which is good. But the final sentence, 'Turns ra Price 0.01 via x402 (USDC on Base),' is unclear and reads like a corrupted or misplaced fragment, undermining the overall structure. It is not concise in a useful way because part of the content fails to communicate.

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?

With no output schema, the description must adequately define what the agent will receive; it names three signal metrics but does not specify the underlying data universe, period, or interpretation. The optional wallet behavior is covered by the schema, but whether this endpoint is paid, requires setup, or returns a specific shape is left ambiguous. An agent cannot confidently select and interpret this tool without additional context.

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 only parameter, 'wallet', is already fully described in the input schema, including the free-tier distinction between 100 anonymous credits and 5000 with a bound wallet. With 100% schema coverage, the description is not required to add parameter detail. It adds nothing, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a concrete deliverable—a live computed signal bundle over an analytics layer—and lists specific signal components (30-period percentile rank, 4-period momentum, plain-language trend verdict). However, it never explicitly connects the tool to the 'cn_stock_finance' scope implied by the name, and the trailing fragment 'Turns ra Price 0.01 via x402 (USDC on Base)' is incoherent. It is understandable as a generic finance-signal tool but not crisply differentiated from many processed_* siblings.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of siblings like processed_stock_quote, processed_a_share_quote, or signal_stock_report. It only implies that the tool is useful when you want computed analytics signals, with no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing. Given the large sibling set, this is a substantial gap.

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

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

Since annotations are absent, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the signal is 'live computed', uses 'China data via AkShare', and costs '0.05 via x402 (USDC on Base)'. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or side effects, but the context implies a data retrieval operation with a pricing mechanism.

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, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds data source and pricing details without unnecessary fluff. Every word contributes value.

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 (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is sufficiently complete: it defines the signal, data source, cost, and the metric's importance. It does not describe the return format, but the metric itself ('spread in bp') is clear enough for an agent to understand the expected output.

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 provides a detailed description for the only parameter 'wallet', including free-tier credit details. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no additional parameter semantics, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'get live computed signal: US 10Y minus China 10Y yield spread in bp'. The verb 'get' and the specific resource (US-China yield spread) make it distinct from sibling tools like processed_us_yield, which focuses on US yields only.

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 labels the signal as a 'key macro cross-border capital flow metric', which tells the agent when to use it (for cross-border capital flow analysis). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it lacks explicit exclusion or alternative guidance.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that the signal is live/computed, lists the analytics transformations, and mentions a cost of '0.01 via x402 (USDC on Base)', which is useful context. However, it omits update frequency, data source, and the meaning of the incomplete 'Turns raw seri Price 0.01' clause.

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 core signal description is reasonably compact and front-loaded, but the final sentence is malformed/truncated ('Turns raw seri Price 0.01 via x402'). The opening also repeats 'Bundle', 'live computed signal', and 'Processed analytics layer' in close succession, adding minor 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?

The absence of an output schema raises the bar, and the description partially compensates by naming three return components and a pricing detail. Still, it never clarifies how the plural 'processed_commodities' differs from the singular 'processed_commodity', what commodity universe is covered, or the structure of the returned signal bundle.

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 only parameter, wallet, is fully described in the input schema with 100% coverage, including the free-tier credit distinction. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a concrete resource (commodities), an action ('get live computed signal'), and the computed outputs ('30-period percentile rank, 4-period momentum, and a plain-language trend verdict'), so it is not a tautology. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling 'processed_commodity', and the final sentence 'Turns raw seri Price 0.01 via x402' is garbled, which slightly muddies the clarity.

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 given on when to prefer this tool over alternatives. With siblings like processed_commodity, signal_gold, and signal_energy present, the description offers no selection criteria or exclusions, only an implied 'use this for live computed commodity signals'.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses 'live computed', 'updated daily', and 'Price 0.01 via x402 (USDC on Base)', which are useful behavioral traits. However, it omits details about the free tier (already in schema) and does not explain what happens if the wallet is absent or the exact nature of the live computation (e.g., cached, delayed).

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 composed of two tight, front-loaded sentences. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose, output scope, update frequency, and pricing without unnecessary fluff.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: the output (index 0-100), the underlying assets, update cadence, and cost. It lacks explicit return format details, but the index range implies the numerical response. The sibling differentiation is clear enough overall.

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% for the single 'wallet' parameter, which already explains the free tier and bound wallet credits. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond that, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states 'get live computed signal' with a specific resource ('Composite pressure index (0-100) from WTI/Brent crude, gold, and silver'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like signal_gold or processed_energy. The word 'Bundle' further clarifies its aggregate scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as signal_gold or processed_energy. It mentions update frequency and pricing but does not state scenarios where a combined commodity index is preferred or when to use a single-commodity signal instead.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the signal is live, computed, multi-source, non-single-source, priced at 0.05 via x402, and includes a composite score plus group rankings. This is strong behavioral context, though it does not detail exact output fields or failure/payment edge cases.

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 dense but not bloated, front-loading the core purpose and then adding scope, output, source characteristics, and price. The mixed-language structure is a little packed, but every clause contributes useful information.

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 no-output-schema, no-annotations tool, the description covers the main operational facts: what is returned (composite score + rankings), coverage scope, multi-source nature, and cost. It does not enumerate exact output fields or explain how group rankings are formatted, but it gives enough context for correct selection and invocation.

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?

There is only one optional parameter, and the schema description already covers it thoroughly: the wallet address, X-Wallet free tier, and credit limits. The tool description does not need to compensate because schema coverage is 100%. The pricing mention adds context but does not explain the parameter further.

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 defines a specific verb and resource: 'get live computed signal' for a multi-asset composite spanning crypto, stocks, macro/trade, commodities/energy, and FX. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from single-source sibling tools with '多源复合派生，非单源' and by describing a composite 0-100 reading plus rankings.

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 usage context is implied: this is the broad cross-asset composite signal tool, so it should be selected when an agent needs a holistic multi-asset overview rather than a single-asset or single-metric reading. However, it never explicitly says when not to use it or names alternative sibling tools, leaving routing mostly to inference.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior, and it does disclose computation details and a cost ('Price 0.01 via x402 (USDC on Base)'). However, that cost sentence is truncated/garbled, and the description does not clarify whether the operation mutates anything, exactly what happens to the raw input, or how the price is applied.

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 first clause front-loads the purpose, but the second 'sentence' is incomplete and confusing ('Turns raw s Price 0.01 via x402'), which makes the definition feel truncated rather than deliberately concise. A short description should still be grammatically coherent.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the return intent is only partially specified; an agent does not know the underlying data source ('fear and greed' is only implied by the name), the exact response shape, or the cost/payment flow. The garbled pricing sentence adds ambiguity instead of completing the picture.

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% for the single optional wallet parameter, including free-tier credit distinctions, so the description does not need to compensate. It adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already provides, which matches the baseline.

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 states a clear operation: it returns a 'live computed signal' built as a 'processed analytics layer over market signals,' with three specific outputs: 30-period percentile rank, 4-period momentum, and a plain-language trend verdict. This goes beyond the generic name and makes the resource identifiable, though it does not explicitly name the Fear & Greed index or distinguish it from siblings like processed_fear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives; sibling candidates such as processed_fear, processed_crypto_prices, or signal_market_stress are never mentioned or contrasted. The only context, 'free credits every month,' comes from the schema rather than the description.

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

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 adds useful specifics about the analytics performed and mentions a 0.01 payment via x402 on Base, which is a meaningful behavioral detail. However, it does not clarify rate limits, failure modes, response shape, or the meaning of the garbled 'Turns r Price' clause.

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 short and front-loads the core signal metrics, but the second sentence is awkward and partially unintelligible ('Turns r Price 0.01 via x402'). The payment detail is relevant but phrased poorly, reducing clarity and polish.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain enough for an agent to understand what it receives and what side effects or prerequisites matter. It lists computed metrics but fails to describe the response format, how the x402 payment flow works, what 'r Price' means, or how this differs from the plural-named sibling tool.

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 single optional wallet parameter is fully documented in the schema at 100% coverage, including its free-tier credit implications. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 core purpose: return a live computed signal from processed crypto-derivative analytics, specifically 30-period percentile rank, 4-period momentum, and a trend verdict. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with the closely named sibling processed_crypto_funding_rates, leaving the singular/plural distinction implicit.

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?

There is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as processed_crypto_funding_rates or the many other processed_* and signal_* siblings. The phrase 'Finance Signal Bundle' implies a higher-level signal use case, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions are provided.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that output is a live computed signal with specific statistics and mentions a 0.01 USDC cost via x402, but it is truncated ('Turns raw s Price...'), omits what input data is consumed, whether any state changes occur, and what the response looks like.

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 short but not cleanly structured: it opens with a label and colon, then an incomplete sentence ('Turns raw s Price 0.01 via x402...') that appears cut off. The useful computation details are present but the broken phrasing wastes the compact space.

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 large sibling list, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is incomplete. It does not state the domain (funding rates), response format, payment/auth flow beyond a garbled price note, or when to prefer it over related crypto signal 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 only parameter, wallet, is already fully described in the schema (100% coverage), including free-tier credit details. The description adds no meaningful param semantics; the garbled pricing note is only loosely related. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already handles the parameter.

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 says it 'get[s] live computed signal' and describes the analytics (30-period percentile rank, 4-period momentum, trend verdict), so the general purpose is identifiable. However, it never mentions funding rates and the closing 'Turns raw s Price 0.01 via x402' is truncated/garbled, so it does not clearly differentiate this from the many processed_crypto_* and signal_* siblings.

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 given on when to use this tool instead of siblings such as processed_crypto_funding_rate, processed_crypto_prices, or processed_crypto_movers. The phrase 'Finance Signal Bundle' implies a category but provides no selection condition or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a 'live computed signal' and an unclear x402 payment/pricing note, but does not explain authentication, rate limits, response shape, or what happens with the optional wallet parameter. The cryptic 'Turns raw Price 0.01 via x402' sentence adds confusion rather than clarity.

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 short and the main action is front-loaded, but the final sentence 'Turns raw Price 0.01 via x402 (USDC on Base)' is awkwardly phrased and likely incomplete, undermining the structure. It is concise but not as clear as it should be.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the agent will receive and any prerequisites. It names three computed outputs but omits the meaning of 'global', the lookback/period definition, payment flow details, and response structure. This is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool in varied contexts.

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%, and the wallet parameter is already well-documented in the schema with free-tier credit details. The description adds no new parameter semantics, but it does not need to because the schema covers the single optional parameter.

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 states a clear verb and resource ('get live computed signal' over 'processed analytics layer over on-chain crypto') and lists specific outputs: 30-period percentile rank, 4-period momentum, and a trend verdict. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling crypto tools, but the 'global' framing and specific computed metrics make the purpose reasonably distinct.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of the many sibling crypto tools such as processed_crypto_prices, processed_crypto_trending, or processed_btc_detail. The description implies it is a signal bundle but does not state typical use cases, exclusions, or alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it is largely limited to saying the signal is 'live' and 'processed.' The pricing/payment phrase 'Turns r Price 0.01 via x402 (USDC on Base)' is garbled and unclear, and there is no mention of authentication, rate limits, or whether any cost is actually incurred.

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 short and front-loaded with 'get live computed signal,' but the opening 'Finance Signal Bundle' is redundant and the final sentence is fragmented and confusing. A cleaner structure could convey the same content more effectively.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, and the description does not explain the return format, what 'longshort' means in practice, which crypto instruments are covered, or how pricing via x402 works. An agent would struggle to predict the response or know the operational implications of calling this tool.

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% and clearly explains the optional wallet parameter and the free-tier credit distinction. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level detail, so the schema is doing the work; baseline 3 applies.

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 identifies a live computed signal over crypto derivatives and lists the concrete components: 30-period percentile rank, 4-period momentum, and a plain-language trend verdict. It does not explicitly differentiate this from the many sibling crypto 'processed_*' tools, but the core purpose is understandable.

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 given about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as processed_crypto_prices, processed_crypto_funding_rate, or processed_crypto_oi. The description states what it computes but not the intended use case or selection context.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the computed metrics and mentions a payment/cost mechanism via x402, but the phrasing 'Turns raw Price 0.01 via x402 (USDC on Base)' is incomplete and ambiguous—it is unclear whether this is a payment requirement, a pricing note, or a transform instruction. It also does not state read-only nature, auth needs, rate limits, or what happens when the wallet parameter is omitted.

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 definition is short but poorly structured: it uses a chain of colons and ends with a malformed, fragmentary sentence ('Turns raw Price 0.01 via x402 (USDC on Base).'). The missing word disrupts scannability and costs the description credibility.

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 no output schema and a large sibling family, the description should clarify what 'movers' means, what universe of assets is covered, whether the result is a list or single value, and how payment via x402 works. It provides neither the return shape nor enough behavioral context to confidently invoke the tool.

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 only parameter, wallet, has a 100% schema description that already explains its optional role and free-tier credit behavior. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the schema already does the heavy lifting, matching the high-coverage baseline.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('get live computed signal' over 'on-chain crypto') and lists concrete outputs: 30-period percentile rank, 4-period momentum, and a plain-language trend verdict. However, it never explains what 'movers' means in this context, and the garbled final sentence about 'Price 0.01 via x402' weakens the clarity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over any of the many crypto siblings such as processed_crypto_trending, processed_crypto_prices, or processed_crypto_sectors. No conditions, exclusions, or alternative recommendations are given, leaving the agent to guess which signal bundle is appropriate.

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

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 mentions 'live computed signal' and an unclear 'Turns r Price 0.01 via x402 (USDC on Base)' fragment, but it does not clarify what this means, what the tool returns, whether any state changes occur, or whether any auth is needed. The garbled payment-related sentence adds confusion rather than transparency.

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 beginning is reasonably front-loaded, but the trailing 'Turns r Price 0.01 via x402 (USDC on Base)' is unclear and ungrammatical, sacrificing clarity. This does not read as deliberate conciseness but as an incomplete or corrupted sentence.

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 description is not complete for a tool with no output schema, no annotations, and many closely related siblings. It omits the underlying data domain (open interest), does not describe the returned signal shape, and fails to explain the cryptic payment/cost mention, leaving an agent uncertain about how to interpret the result or whether invoking it incurs a charge.

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%, and there is only one optional wallet parameter whose meaning is already documented in the schema. The tool description itself adds no real parameter explanation; the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full burden.

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 a specific verb ('get live computed signal') and identifies a processed analytics layer over crypto derivatives with concrete components: 30-period percentile rank, 4-period momentum, and a trend verdict. It does not explicitly tie the tool to open interest or differentiate it from the many processed_crypto_* siblings, though the name supplies that link.

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 given for when to use this tool versus alternatives like processed_crypto_funding_rates or processed_crypto_prices. The description implies use for processed crypto signals but does not state criteria, exclusions, or context that would distinguish it from siblings.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It attempts to add a payment/transaction note via 'Turns r Price 0.01 via x402 (USDC on Base)', but the phrasing is garbled and unreliable, and it does not clearly disclose whether this is a read-only query, what authentication is needed, or what side effects or costs apply.

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 short and front-loads the signal purpose, but the final sentence is fragmented and confusing ('Turns r Price 0.01 via x402'). Briefness is not enough when a key sentence fails to communicate its intended message cleanly.

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 one-parameter schema reduces complexity, but there is no output schema and the description never ties the tool to orderbook data. It lists signal components and mentions payment, yet omits enough context about what the user receives and when this tool is the right choice among many processed_* 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the only parameter, wallet, is already clearly documented with its optional nature and free-tier credit implications. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but the base score of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the necessary work.

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 gives a verb and general resource ('get live computed signal' over 'crypto derivatives') and lists specific analytics outputs, so it is not a pure tautology. However, it never mentions orderbook data, which is the core of the tool name, and the phrase 'Finance Signal Bundle' is vague enough that it could describe many of the processed_crypto_* siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as processed_crypto_prices or processed_crypto_oi. The description only implies the tool provides computed crypto signal analytics, with no explicit context, exclusions, or comparison to sibling tools.

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

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the behavioral load. It discloses that the result is live/computed and mentions USDC/x402 payment, but the payment sentence is malformed and it does not explain output format, auth requirements, read-only nature, or rate limiting beyond what the schema itself already says about wallet credits.

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 first sentence is front-loaded and compact, but the second sentence is syntactically broken ('Turns raw Price 0.01 via x402') with a double space and missing context, which undermines the structure.

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?

With no output schema, the description should clarify the returned signal shape or response fields; it only names metrics. It also leaves the payment/x402 workflow unexplained, making the tool under-specified for an agent to call confidently.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description does not add much parameter-specific meaning. The x402/USDC mention hints at payment relevance, but the only parameter (wallet) is already fully described in the schema.

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 opens with a specific action ('get live computed signal') and identifies a 'processed analytics layer over on-chain crypto' with concrete outputs (30-period percentile rank, 4-period momentum, trend verdict). It is clear enough on its own, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the many processed_crypto_* siblings.

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?

There is no guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives, no exclusions, and no prerequisites. The only usage hint is the cryptic 'Turns raw Price 0.01 via x402' clause, which is not actionable.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention x402 pricing ('Turns raw Price 0.01 via x402 (USDC on Base)'), but that phrase is ambiguous and does not clearly describe cost behavior, access requirements, rate limits, latency, or return structure. It discloses the computed signal components but not how the tool actually behaves when invoked.

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 run-on, colon-heavy construction that mixes a title-like label ('Finance Signal Bundle') with signal details and an unclear pricing fragment. The main action is front-loaded, but the second sentence ('Turns raw Price 0.01 via x402 (USDC on Base)') is confusing and does not earn its place as written.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the caller receives, but it only lists metric names without describing the asset universe, timeframe, sector definitions, or result format. It also omits the optional wallet parameter from the description, though the schema partially compensates. For a signal-producing tool in a large family of similar tools, the context is under-specified.

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 only parameter, wallet, is fully described in the input schema, including the free-tier credit distinction. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds no extra parameter meaning, but none is needed.

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 states a clear verb and resource: it 'get[s] live computed signal' from a 'Processed analytics layer over on-chain crypto,' and specifies the exact signal components (30-period percentile rank, 4-period momentum, plain-language trend verdict). It is not a tautology and is generally understandable, though it does not differentiate this tool from sibling processed_crypto_* tools or explain what 'crypto sectors' means.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus any of its many siblings, such as processed_crypto_trending, processed_crypto_movers, or processed_crypto_global. The phrase 'Processed analytics layer' weakly implies a use case, but no conditions, exclusions, or alternatives are provided.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the output is live/computed, that the layer is processed analytics, and mentions a USDC-on-Base x402 payment element, which is useful. But it does not describe return payload shape, required auth, rate limits, or failure behavior, and the payment sentence is too ambiguous to be fully actionable.

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 short and front-loaded with the signal components, but the final sentence is malformed and not clearly informative. It is not rambling, yet it does not fully earn its place as written.

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 low complexity (zero required parameters, no nested schema), the description covers the signal's components and hints at a payment/access mechanism. It still leaves the exact return structure and the true meaning of the x402 sentence unspecified, which prevents a higher score.

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 single optional wallet parameter is already fully documented in the schema with the free-tier explanation. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage applies.

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 names a specific action ('get live computed signal') and resource ('Processed analytics layer over on-chain crypto'), and enumerates concrete outputs—30-period percentile rank, 4-period momentum, and trend verdict—which helps separate it from the many processed_crypto_* siblings. However, the final phrase 'Turns raw Price 0.01 via x402 (USDC on Base)' is unclear and slightly muddies the core purpose.

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 wording implies a use case: requesting a computed on-chain crypto trend signal. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings, nor does it mention any alternatives or exclusion conditions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose that this is a processed/live signal with 30-period percentile rank, 4-period momentum, and a trend verdict. It also hints at a $0.01 payment via x402, but the garbled second sentence obscures whether that is a cost, a transformation, or both, and no output or failure behavior is disclosed.

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 short but poorly structured, especially the second sentence: 'Turns raw Price 0.01 via x402 (USDC on Base).' contains a double space, odd capitalization, and an unclear relationship between 'raw', 'Price', and '0.01'. The useful computation details are front-loaded, but the malformed sentence reduces clarity.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the signal response looks like and how to interpret the percentile, momentum, and verdict. It also fails to mention TVL or chain specificity, leaving an agent without enough context to confidently call the tool or interpret its result.

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 only parameter, wallet, is fully documented in the schema with its free-tier credit meaning, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra parameter context, keeping this at the baseline.

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 states a specific action ('get live computed signal') and names some signal components, but it never identifies the actual resource implied by the tool name: DeFi chain TVL. The broad phrase 'Processed analytics layer over on-chain crypto' could describe many crypto sibling tools, and the missing TVL reference weakens purpose clarity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the large set of similar processed_* and signal_* siblings. It does not state scenarios, exclusions, or alternative tools, leaving selection entirely to the agent's inference.

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

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 does reveal that the tool produces a live computed signal, lists the calculations involved, and appears to mention pricing via 'x402 (USDC on Base).' However, the fragment 'Turns raw Price 0.01' is grammatically unclear, and the description does not explain return format, data source specifics, or whether any auth/credits are needed beyond the schema's wallet note.

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 short and front-loads the core signal components, but the final sentence 'Turns raw Price 0.01 via x402 (USDC on Base)' is confusing and poorly structured. It may be intended as pricing information, but as written it undermines clarity without adding precise value.

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 has no output schema and no annotations, yet the description does not describe the return shape, structure, or units of the signal, and it omits explicit mention that this is a DEX volume product. Given many sibling tools and an optional wallet parameter, an agent may struggle to know what it will receive or how this tool differs from adjacent analytics 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single optional wallet parameter, with detailed free-tier credit information already in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but it does not need to because the schema is already self-sufficient.

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 states a specific action and output: 'get live computed signal' with clear components like '30-period percentile rank, 4-period momentum, and a plain-language trend verdict.' It is more specific than a generic analytics tool, though it never explicitly mentions DEX volume, which is only present in the tool name, so it does not fully distinguish itself from the many processed_* siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like processed_defi_health, processed_defi_fees_revenue, or processed_crypto_prices. The phrase 'Finance Signal Bundle' implies a category, but it does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or a selection condition relative to sibling tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds 'live computed' and a cryptic x402/USDC cost note, but it does not explain pricing behavior, authentication, free-tier credits, rate limits, or what a call actually returns. The malformed 'Turns raw Price 0.01 via x402' is too ambiguous to inform an agent.

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 short but not clean: the second sentence is a fragment with a double space and missing words. It front-loads 'Finance Signal Bundle' but then spends its closing on unclear cost phrasing that does not earn its place.

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?

With no output schema and many near-sibling processed_defi_* tools, the description should state the underlying data source (fees/revenue) and the response shape. It only gives generic signal math, leaving an agent to infer the domain from the tool name.

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%, and the schema already documents the optional wallet parameter and its free-tier behavior clearly. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 says 'get live computed signal' and lists specific output math (30-period percentile rank, 4-period momentum, trend verdict), but it never ties the tool to DeFi fees/revenue despite the name. It could describe any processed_defi_* sibling, since 'processed analytics layer over on-chain crypto' is generic and the final sentence is garbled ('Turns raw Price 0.01 via x402').

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like processed_defi_chain_tvl, processed_defi_dex_volume, or processed_defi_health. No alternatives, exclusions, or selection conditions are mentioned.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal that the signal is live, computed from on-chain data, and apparently paid via x402 (USDC on Base). However, it does not clarify return format, rate limits, or what the garbled 'raw Price 0.01' actually means, leaving meaningful ambiguity.

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 brief and front-loads the key signal components, but it ends with a malformed sentence ('Turns raw Price 0.01 via x402 (USDC on Base)') that obscures meaning. The unclear fragment prevents the structure from being genuinely concise and helpful.

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?

Without an output schema or annotations, the description needs to explain the return shape more completely. It names three signal components and mentions payment, but leaves unclear what the '30-period' refers to, what 'defi health' encompasses, and exactly how the paid flow works. Still, the tool has only one optional parameter, so invocation is not heavily impeded.

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 already documents the single optional wallet parameter with 100% coverage, including free-tier credit details. The description adds essentially no parameter semantics beyond an unclear pricing note, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific output: a live computed signal with 30-period percentile rank, 4-period momentum, and a plain-language trend verdict. It is clear enough to identify as a DeFi-health analytics tool, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the many sibling processed_* tools and contains a confusing 'Turns raw Price 0.01' fragment.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as processed_defi_chain_tvl, processed_defi_dex_volume, or the various signal_* tools. 'Finance Signal Bundle' implies a summary/health use case, but the description never states it explicitly or names exclusions.

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

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 does explain that the tool computes analytics over on-chain crypto and mentions a payment mechanism ('via x402 (USDC on Base)'), but the payment sentence is unclear, and there is no disclosure of output format, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether the operation is read-only. This is only partial transparency.

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 short, but structurally flawed: the first sentence chains three clauses with colons, and the second sentence 'Turns raw Price 0.01 via x402 (USDC on Base)' is ungrammatical and nearly impossible to parse. One of the two sentences does not earn its place, so conciseness is undermined by poor structure.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description should at least explain the data universe and the return shape. It lists three computed signals, but never states that this is specifically about stablecoins, and it does not clarify what input selects or how the result is presented. An agent cannot fully determine whether this is the right tool among the many crypto 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the sole optional wallet parameter is already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning about how the wallet affects the call, but this is acceptable because the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 names a clear deliverable ('live computed signal') and lists concrete outputs: 30-period percentile rank, 4-period momentum, and a trend verdict. However, it never explicitly mentions stablecoins despite the tool name, and the final sentence 'Turns raw Price 0.01 via x402 (USDC on Base)' is grammatically unclear, so the purpose is only partially intelligible.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus any of the many sibling processed_* tools, nor any exclusions or alternate tool suggestions. The phrase 'live computed signal' implies real-time analytics use, but that is implicit rather than explicit.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the data source (mempool.space), self-calculation, and mentions payment via x402 (USDC on Base), but the payment statement is ambiguous and the return format is not specified. This is partial transparency.

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 run-on sentence that mixes the signal purpose, EMA band list, and payment details without punctuation or clear structure. The tail 'EMA bands [9/14/25/40/60/90/128/20 Price 0.01 via x402' is confusing and poorly organized.

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?

While the core purpose is clear, the description omits the output structure (what the signal actually looks like) and leaves the payment/cost aspect ambiguous. With no output schema or annotations, the description should be more explicit about return value and usage conditions.

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% (the 'wallet' parameter is documented in the schema with its free-tier explanation). The description does not add parameter information, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully covers the only parameter.

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 gets a live computed signal for BTC Hashrate Ribbon (difficulty ribbon equivalent), self-calculated from mempool.space daily hashrate. This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from sibling signal tools like processed_altseason or processed_bdi.

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 usage when a BTC hashrate/difficulty ribbon signal is needed, but it does not explicitly provide when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It relies on the tool name and sibling names to convey distinction.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does reveal that the output includes a 30-period percentile rank, 4-period momentum, and a trend verdict, which is useful. However, it does not clarify whether this is a paid x402 transaction, what the 'Price 0.01' means, how data is sourced, whether the 'live' claim has caveats, or what happens on request. The garbled payment/price fragment adds confusion instead of transparency.

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 short, but the structure is poor: the useful analytic details are front-loaded, yet the closing sentence 'Turns raw series into d Price 0.01 via x402 (USDC on Base)' reads like a corrupted or truncated fragment that wastes its final words and undermines clarity. It is under-specified rather than concisely informative.

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 tool that returns computed signal values, the absence of an output schema increases the burden on the description to explain what the agent will receive. The description lists three component signals, which helps, but it omits the instrument source (Danish National Bank), currency, date range, response shape, and the meaning of the x402/USDC payment mention. An agent cannot confidently use this tool or interpret its result from the description alone.

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?

There is only one parameter, wallet, and the input schema describes it fully, including the free-tier distinction between anonymous and bound wallets. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but it does not need to for this single optional parameter.

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 starts with 'Finance Signal Bundle - get live computed signal' and lists FX analytics outputs, so it at least names a verb and a general domain. But it never mentions Danish National Bank rates, which is exactly what the tool name identifies, and the trailing phrase 'Turns raw series into d Price 0.01 via x402 (USDC on Base)' is garbled and obscures the actual resource. The stated purpose is too generic to distinguish this from the many other processed_fx_* siblings.

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 explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as processed_fx_rates, processed_no_fx_latest, or processed_nordic_ecb_fx. The phrase 'processed analytics layer' weakly implies this is for derived signals rather than raw rates, but that is only an implication, not stated guidance. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or conditional routing instructions.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden and does add meaningful behavior: the signal is live-computed, composite across 8 series, and involves a 'plain Price 0.05 via x402 (USDC on Base)' which appears to disclose a payment/cost behavior. It stops short of explaining rate limits, authentication, or what exactly the returned price represents, but for a read-oriented signal tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and packs methodology, scope, and pricing into a compact space. The colon-heavy structure is slightly awkward and the term 'plain' adds little, but there is no wasted filler or redundant restatement.

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?

Without an output schema or annotations, the description should explain what the caller actually receives and what the input signal covers. It omits which 8 series are used, provides no return-shape information, and the 'Price 0.05 via x402' phrase is ambiguous—it could mean cost or a returned price value. This makes it incomplete for confident invocation.

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%, and the single optional wallet parameter is already fully documented in the input schema. The descriptions adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific resource ('live computed signal') and gives a concrete computation recipe: 30-period percentile rank, 4-period momentum, cross-sectional ranking, and a price via x402. It is identifiable as a signal-bundle tool, but it never names the underlying 8 series or explicitly ties itself to FRED/economic data, so it does not fully stand apart from the many similar processed_* siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With dozens of processed_* and signal_* siblings, the description should say whether this is for FRED-derived economic signals, how it differs from signal_econ_global or processed_global_markets, or when the composite ranking is preferable. None of that is present.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does reveal that the tool returns a live computed signal and mentions a 0.05 price paid via x402 in USDC on Base, which hints at a paid/authenticated call. However, it does not explain what the response contains, whether the wallet parameter is used for payment, how access is enforced, or any rate or billing specifics.

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 short and avoids excessive padding, but it is one dense sentence packed with ambiguous jargon such as 'per-member 30-period percentile rank' and 'plain Price 0.05 via x402.' It could be more readable and front-loaded with the core purpose before the calculation details.

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 appears moderately complex: it aggregates four series, computes rankings, and involves a payment mechanism. There is no output schema and the description does not explain the return shape, the meaning of 'per-member,' which four series are involved, or how the x402 payment works. An agent would struggle to understand what the tool actually returns or what calling it entails.

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 100%, so the optional wallet parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds a payment-related subtext via 'x402 (USDC on Base)' but does not explicitly connect it to the wallet parameter or clarify what the wallet is used for. The description therefore adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 states it provides a 'live computed signal' and specifies the composite calculation approach, which gives some sense of purpose. However, it is vague about the actual data domain: the tool name suggests EIA energy data, while the description says 'Finance Signal Bundle' and never mentions energy or EIA. This weakens differentiation from the many sibling processed_* and signal_* tools.

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 choose this tool over alternatives such as processed_energy, signal_energy, or other processed_* siblings. The description contains no when-to-use or when-not-to-use information, leaving the agent to infer the intended use case from the name alone.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It adds value by disclosing the cost (Price 0.01 via x402 on Base) and source (Farside), but it does not mention side effects, rate limits, or whether it is read-only. This partial transparency is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes necessary cost information. It is generally concise, though the run-on structure and typo ('outf' instead of 'outflow') slightly reduce clarity.

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 description lists the main computed fields and mentions the payment requirement, which helps set expectations. However, without an output schema, it does not clarify the return format or resolve the truncated phrase 'top inflow/outf', so the completeness is moderate.

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 only parameter, 'wallet', is fully described in the schema with 100% coverage, including its optionality and free-tier details. The description adds no further parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 provides live computed Bitcoin spot ETF net flows from Farside, enumerating specific data points (single-day net inflow, total, 5-day cumulative, top inflow/outflow). It is resource-specific but does not explicitly contrast with sibling signal tools, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. The description simply describes what the tool does without contextualizing its use case.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behaviors. It mentions pricing (0.01 via x402 on Base) and intraday validity, which are useful. However, it omits details such as whether wallet binding affects output, what response format is returned, and any rate limits or authentication requirements.

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 sentence that packs the signal type, source, scale, validity, and pricing. Every word contributes meaning, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 paid tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core signal and pricing but lacks details on the x402 payment flow, the free tier wallet behavior, and expected return shape. These gaps could hinder an agent's invocation.

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 single optional 'wallet' parameter is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is met. The description does not mention this parameter, but the schema already explains its purpose and free tier implications.

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 provides a live cross-asset fear gauge (0-100) synthesized from VIX, gold/equity/crypto volatility, valid intraday. This specific verb+resource (get signal) and detailed scope distinguish it from generic sibling tools.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like processed_vix_stress or signal_market_stress. It only describes the product's nature without specifying selection criteria or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool produces a live computed signal and lists the analytics involved, and it adds an unusual access/payment detail ('via x402 (USDC on Base)'). However, this detail is cryptic, and the description does not clearly state side effects, access requirements, or output behavior beyond those components.

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 short and front-loads the core purpose, but the final sentence 'Turns raw series in Price 0.01 via x402 (USDC on Base)' is ambiguous and jargon-heavy. It likely carries important access or pricing information but is not structured clearly enough to earn a higher score.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, and the description does enumerate the signal components that would appear in the result. However, it leaves key context unexplained—what 'Price 0.01 via x402' means, how the returned signal is structured, and how this relates to the many sibling processed_* 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 only parameter, wallet, is fully documented in the schema with an explanation of the anonymous and bound-wallet free tiers. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but because schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'get live computed signal' over energy, and lists concrete outputs (30-period percentile rank, 4-period momentum, trend verdict). It is clear that this is a processed analytics signal for electricity/energy, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like signal_electricity or processed_energy_eia.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as signal_electricity or processed_energy_eia. The phrase 'Processed analytics layer over energy' implies a use case, but no conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool mentions are provided.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the tool returns 'live computed' data and mentions a USDC payment path via x402, but the wording is ambiguous and the description omits return format, latency behavior, authentication needs, or whether the 'Price 0.05' is a cost or an output field. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation safety net.

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 short and has no filler, and it front-loads the primary action after the label. However, it is structured as one dense, multi-colon sentence that packs together signal math, rankings, and a cryptic x402 payment reference without clear separation. It is concise but not optimally structured for quick parsing.

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 has no output schema and no annotations, yet the description does not explain what the response contains, how the composite signal should be interpreted, what the four underlying series are, or how the x402/USDC mechanics work. For a paid/composite finance-signal tool, these are material gaps that an agent needs to call and use it correctly.

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%, so the wallet parameter is already documented in the schema with concrete detail about free-tier credits. The main description adds no parameter semantics of its own, but that is acceptable because the schema carries the full burden. Baseline 3 applies.

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 identifies an action ('get live computed signal') and a resource ('Composite processed layer across 4 series'), so it is not a tautology. However, it never names the four series, does not clearly tie the tool to FX beyond the tool name, and uses 'plus a plain Price 0.05 via x402 (USDC on Base)' ambiguously. This is a vague purpose that does not clearly distinguish among the many processed_* siblings.

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?

There is no guidance about when to choose this tool instead of sibling tools such as processed_fx_rates, processed_no_fx_latest, or other processed_* peers. The description implies it is a live composite signal bundle, but it does not state a use case, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent cannot infer selection criteria from this text.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a live-computed nature and a payment rail ('Price 0.01 via x402 (USDC on Base)'), but it is incomplete and confusingly phrased, and it omits response shape, errors, rate limits, and auth prerequisites beyond the schema's wallet note.

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 first clause is front-loaded and informative, but the final fragment 'Turns raw series into d Price 0.01 via x402 (USDC on Base)' is ungrammatical and hard to parse, suggesting a corrupted or hastily assembled description. It is short but not clean.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description names the three expected output components (percentile rank, momentum, trend verdict), which is sufficient to know what the tool returns. It does not provide exact response fields or data coverage details, but for a tool with only an optional wallet parameter this is reasonably complete.

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 single parameter (wallet) is fully documented in the schema with free-tier details, so the description does not need to add much. The description's mention of x402 pricing adds a bit of context but does not materially extend the parameter semantics.

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 names a clear verb-resource pair ('get live computed signal' over FX) and specifies the exact analytics: 30-period percentile rank, 4-period momentum, and a plain-language trend verdict. This differentiates it from raw FX or historical FX tools, though the garbled 'd Price 0.01 via x402' tail slightly muddies the stated purpose.

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?

It implies the tool is for situations where a caller wants a processed, live FX signal rather than raw rate data. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no comparison against sibling tools such as processed_fx_hist or processed_no_fx_latest.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does provide meaningful detail: it reveals the computed metrics, the plain-language verdict, and payment via 'Price 0.01 via x402 (USDC on Base)'. The 'Turns ra' fragment is garbled, and auth/rate-limit behavior is omitted, but the core signal and paid nature are disclosed.

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 front-loads the signal purpose and metrics in a fairly compact format, but the sentence 'Turns ra Price 0.01 via x402 (USDC on Base)' is malformed and undermines clarity. The colon-heavy structure is serviceable but not polished.

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 description names the expected analytical outputs and payment channel, which is useful given there is no output schema. However, it leaves gaps around response shape, time period, how x402 payment is triggered, and how this relates to sibling geo/risk tools, so the agent may need to infer operational details.

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 sole parameter, wallet, is fully documented in the input schema, including free-tier credit details, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description adds no additional parameter-level guidance, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 that the tool retrieves a live computed signal and is a processed analytics layer over geopolitical risk, listing specific outputs (30-period percentile rank, 4-period momentum, trend verdict). It is specific enough about the resource and operation, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like signal_geo_risk or processed_worldtension.

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?

'Processed analytics layer' and 'live computed signal' imply this is the enriched geopolitical-risk signal tool, but the description never states when to choose it over alternatives such as signal_geo_risk or processed_worldtension. The usage context is only implied, not explicitly guided.

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

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It does add useful behavioral context by saying the signal is 'live computed' and by mentioning a payment price ('0.05 via x402 USDC on Base'), which warns the agent of a cost. However, the payment clause is poorly worded, and there is no further disclosure about authentication, failure behavior, or how the free-tier wallet param relates to the paid access.

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 dense run-on sentence that mixes useful methodology details with confusing jargon and an apparent typo ('plai Price'). It is not clearly structured or front-loaded, and the ending fragment is hard to parse.

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 tool with no output schema and a complex composite-signal behavior, the description leaves too much unspecified: which indices are in the 13 series, what the returned data looks like, and how free vs paid access actually works. The many sibling tools increase the need for clearer context, which this description does not provide.

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 already fully describes the only parameter (wallet), including the anonymous vs bound-wallet free-credit distinction. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the agent already has from the schema.

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 phrase 'get live computed signal' states a clear verb and resource, and the mention of 'Composite processed layer across 13 series' gives some specificity. However, the description never identifies which 'global indices' are covered, and the garbled ending 'plus a plai Price 0.05 via x402' muddles the purpose. It also does not differentiate this from the sibling signal_global_indices.

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 given about when to choose processed_global_indices over alternatives such as signal_global_indices or the many other processed_* tools. There are no stated exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions that would help an agent decide to invoke this tool rather than a sibling.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful context by noting the signal is live/computed and appears to involve a 0.05 cost via x402 on Base, plus the wallet schema implies a free-tier/auth model. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, response behavior, rate limits, or the meaning of the pricing clause.

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 run-on sentence that mixes computation details, composite-layer description, and payment information. The 'plai Price' segment appears garbled or truncated, and the overall structure is not cleanly front-loaded or easy to parse.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain what the tool returns, but it only lists computed components without defining the 16 series, the notion of 'member', or the response structure. An agent also lacks clear guidance on authentication and the exact payment flow, so the description is insufficient for reliably interpreting the result.

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 sole parameter, 'wallet', is already fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the tool description does not need to repeat it. The description's pricing clause hints at costs but does not clarify the wallet parameter's role in free-tier vs paid access. Baseline 3 applies because the schema handles parameter semantics.

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 states a specific action ('get live computed signal') and resource: a composite processed layer across 16 series, with named components (30-period percentile rank, 4-period momentum, cross-sectional ranking). It does not explicitly differentiate this from siblings like processed_global_indices or signal_global_indices, and the garbled 'plai Price' clause weakens clarity.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusion of alternatives, and no prerequisite information. The label 'Finance Signal Bundle' only vaguely implies a use case, and the sibling list is large with similarly named processed_* tools, yet nothing in the description helps an agent choose between them.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose useful computation behavior (percentile rank, momentum, plain-language verdict) and a payment mechanism (x402 / USDC on Base), but it does not clarify whether this is read-only, how live the data is, what the response looks like, or any rate/credit behavior beyond the wallet schema.

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 short but poorly structured, with an unclear fragment ('Turns raw ser Price 0.01 via x402') and redundant branding ('Finance Signal Bundle'). It is not fully front-loaded: the key computation detail comes after the confusing pricing/payment phrase.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values; it names metrics but not their periodicity, source, units, or output structure. It also fails to explain how this relates to the closely named processed_us_labor and signal_labor tools, leaving an agent unable to confidently select it.

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 single optional wallet parameter already has 100% schema description coverage, explaining the X-Wallet free tier and monthly credits. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies; the x402 mention relates to cost, not to parameter semantics.

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 identifies a specific resource (processed labor-market analytics) and concrete computed outputs (30-period percentile rank, 4-period momentum, trend verdict), so it is not a tautology. However, the opening branding 'Finance Signal Bundle' and the garbled fragment 'Turns raw ser Price 0.01 via x402' obscure the actual data source and output, and it does not differentiate from nearby siblings like processed_us_labor or signal_labor.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many labor-market and signal siblings. It only implies a 'live computed signal' use case, with no exclusions, alternative tool names, or prerequisite conditions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behaviors. It mentions 'via x402 (USDC on Base)' but does not explicitly state that this is a paid transaction, whether wallet authorization is required, what the response contains, or any rate limits. The phrase 'Measures bond Price 0.01' is cryptic and fails to clarify the pricing/metering mechanism.

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 short (two sentences), but the second sentence ('Measures bond Price 0.01 via x402 (USDC on Base)') is ambiguous and confusing, potentially wasting valuable context. It does not clearly earn its place and may mislead an agent about pricing or output.

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?

This is a paid financial signal tool with no output schema and no annotations. The description explains the signal calculation but omits essential context: what the response looks like, how payment works, whether a wallet must be provided for paid access, and any prerequisites. The cryptic pricing reference is insufficient.

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 only parameter (wallet) is fully described in the input schema (coverage 100%), including free-tier options. The tool description adds no further semantic detail about the wallet parameter; the mention of x402/USDC is tangential and not clearly linked to the parameter.

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 a specific action ('get live computed signal') and a precise resource ('MOVE volatility proxy (bond market VIX)') with a detailed formula ('30-day rolling annualized volatility of 10Y Treasury yield (DGS10) from FRED'). This distinguishes it from sibling processed_* tools that focus on other signals.

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 tool should be used when bond-market volatility (MOVE proxy) is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. No sibling tools are named as comparisons.

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

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

The description discloses useful behavioral traits: the data is lagged 1 day, sourced from BGeometrics, and computed live. It also attempts to disclose a fee ('Price 0.01 via x402 (USDC on Base)'), but the phrase is confusingly worded with a typo ('Cycle-leve'), obscuring the actual payment mechanism. No annotations are present, so this limited disclosure carries full weight, but the ambiguity prevents a higher score.

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 relatively compact, but it contains a typo ('Cycle-leve') and an unclear clause that requires interpretation. The three-sentence structure is front-loaded with the core signal, but the final sentence's wording detracts from overall clarity.

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-parameter signal tool, the description covers the key elements: metric definition, source, latency, interpretation thresholds, and a pricing hint. However, it does not describe the return value shape or what 'Finance Signal Bundle' includes, and the payment detail is garbled, leaving some gaps in the absence of an output schema and annotations.

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 already fully describes the only parameter (wallet) with a clear explanation of its free-tier benefit. The description adds no parameter-level semantic nuance, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 function: getting the live computed BTC MVRV (market cap / realized cap) signal from BGeometrics with a 1-day lag. It specifies the exact metric and interpretive thresholds, distinguishing it from the many sibling processed_* and signal_* tools. The verb 'get' and resource 'BTC MVRV signal' are specific and unambiguous.

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 thresholds (MVRV<1 buy zone, >3.5 bubble top) provide concrete context for when this signal is actionable, implying its use as a BTC valuation/cycle indicator. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or scenarios where a different signal would be preferred, so it falls short of a 5.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the live computed nature and the exact formula, and mentions a cost of 0.05 via x402 (USDC on Base), hinting at a fee. However, it does not specify output format, latency, error behavior, or any side effects, leaving 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 dense sentence that packs the formula, context, and pricing. It is front-loaded with 'Finance Signal Bundle - get live computed signal'. However, the phrase 'c Price 0.05' is cryptic and could be a typo, slightly hurting clarity.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not explain what the returned signal looks like beyond the formula. It gives the computation and a high-level use case, but lacks details on response structure or caveats, making it minimally viable but incomplete.

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% for the single parameter 'wallet', with full details already in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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 function: 'get live computed signal: Fed net liquidity = Fed balance sheet (WALCL) - reverse repos (WLRRAL) - Treasury General Account (TGA)'. It provides a specific verb, resource, and formula, and frames it as a 'global risk asset pricing anchor', distinguishing it from sibling processed_* signals.

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?

Implied usage is clear: it is for tracking Fed net liquidity as a risk asset pricing anchor. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus other processed_* tools, nor any exclusion criteria or alternatives mentioned.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'live computed signal' and cryptically references 'x402 (USDC on Base),' hinting at payment, but it does not clarify return format, permissions, rate limits, or side effects. The malformed phrase 'Turns raw series into d Price 0.01' undermines transparency.

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 first sentence is front-loaded with useful signal information, but the second sentence appears corrupted and confusing ('Turns raw series into d Price 0.01 via x402'), so it fails to earn its place. The heavy colon usage and 'Finance Signal Bundle' opener add minor 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify the return shape, which FX instruments are covered, and what the x402 payment mechanism actually means. It lists the signal components but leaves material details ambiguous, making the tool incomplete to invoke correctly.

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%, and the single optional 'wallet' parameter is adequately described in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but the schema already carries the semantic load, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 first sentence clearly states an action ('get live computed signal') and resource ('Processed analytics layer over FX'), and even enumerates outputs: '30-period percentile rank, 4-period momentum, and a plain-language trend verdict.' However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like processed_fx_rates or processed_fx_hist, and the garbled final sentence adds confusion.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are mentioned. The phrase 'get live computed signal' weakly implies use for processed FX analytics, but the description does not contrast it with raw FX or historical FX siblings.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does add one notable behavior—'Price 0.01 via x402 (USDC on Base)' suggests a payment/credit requirement—but it is phrased as 'd Price 0.01' and is unclear. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only computation, how often data updates, or what 'raw series' means.

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 short and front-loaded, but the run-on sentence contains a truncated, nonsensical segment ('into d Price 0.01 via x402') that appears to be a formatting error. The text does not read as professionally structured.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should explain what the agent will receive; it lists three signal components, but leaves the instrument ('Nordic ECB FX'), the meaning of the percentile/momentum/verdict, and the payment/credit workflow unclear. For a tool with one optional parameter it is not unusable, but it is not complete enough for confident invocation.

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 only parameter, wallet, is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), including free-tier credit details. With the schema shouldering the explanation, the description adds no needed parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Description names a specific verb and resource: 'get live computed signal' for a 'Processed analytics layer over FX', and lists concrete outputs (30-period percentile rank, 4-period momentum, trend verdict). However, it doesn't differentiate from the many FX siblings like processed_fx_rates or processed_no_fx_latest, and the garbled 'into d Price 0.01 via x402' undermines precision.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as processed_fx_rates, processed_fx_hist, or the signal_* tools. The description only states what the tool computes, leaving selection entirely to inference from the sibling names.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions data lag (1 day) and source, but the payment/cost aspect is ambiguous: 'Price 0.01 via x402 (USDC on Base)' is unclear whether 'Price' is an output or a fee, and the typo 'anc' further obscures meaning. This ambiguity is significant for a tool that might charge users, and there is no clear statement of whether authentication or wallet is required at the tool level.

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 sentence and relatively short, but the final clause is confusing due to the typo 'anc' and the ambiguous 'Price 0.01 via x402' phrasing. It is not as clean or well-structured as ideal.

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 description covers the signal source, lag, and interpretation thresholds, but lacks a clear statement of what the return value looks like (e.g., numeric value, JSON object). More importantly, the payment requirement is muddled; for a paid API call, the cost/usage should be unambiguous. With no output schema, the description should compensate more.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not mention the 'wallet' parameter, but the schema already provides a clear description including free tier credits, so the description need not compensate. No additional parameter meaning is added.

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 retrieves a live computed BTC NUPL signal, identifies the specific resource (BTC NUPL) and source (BGeometrics), and distinguishes it from sibling tool by naming the exact metric and its interpretation. The verb 'get' and resource are specific.

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 gives clear context by explaining NUPL thresholds for sentiment interpretation (capitulation zone, bubble top), implying use cases for market sentiment assessment. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is strong enough for a signal-specific tool.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does add value by explaining the calculation method (self-calculated from CoinGecko data) and pricing (0.01 via x402). However, it does not disclose the return format, potential errors, or any side effects beyond being a read-only signal.

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?

Two sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded and pricing/calculation details following. It is efficient, though 'Finance Signal Bundle' is slightly redundant with the specific nature of the tool.

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 read-only signal tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the core functionality well but omits the output shape. Since there is no output schema, the agent is left guessing what the response looks like. It also doesn't mention any dependencies or potential latency.

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 100%—the single 'wallet' parameter is already fully described in the schema. The tool description adds no further info about this parameter, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 it 'get live computed signal' for 'BTC Puell Multiple', with a formula and data sources. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like processed_mvrv or processed_nupl by specifying the exact indicator and asset.

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 intended use is implied by naming the Puell Multiple indicator, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no recommended scenarios, and no exclusions. It relies on the indicator name to convey usage.

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

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 the pricing (0.01 USDC via x402 on Base) and live computation nature, which are key behavioral traits. It lacks rate-limit or side-effect details, but for a read-only signal tool this is adequate.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every phrase adds value (signal type, interpretation thresholds, cost/access). 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 tool with a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, interpretation, and cost effectively. Minor gap: it doesn't describe the response format, which is relevant given no output schema, but the simple nature of the tool mitigates this.

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 100% and the wallet parameter is fully described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond the overall pricing context, which indirectly relates to wallet usage but is not explicit. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states it 'get[s] live computed signal' for the Put/Call volume ratio on SPY options, specifying the exact resource and a contrarian interpretation. The specificity distinguishes it from the many sibling finance signal tools.

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 usage context through the contrarian indicator definition and thresholds (>1.2 panic, <0.8 greed), which tells the agent when this signal would be relevant. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to use this over siblings or provide exclusion criteria.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses that the signal is live computed and self-calculated from CoinGecko, and mentions the 0.01 cost via x402, adding behavioral context. However, it does not describe return format, error behavior, or any prerequisites beyond the schema.

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 short but poorly structured: the second sentence is a run-on with a typo ('scarci') and mixes signal context with pricing, making it harder to parse. Not every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description explains the signal's purpose and cost but does not explain what the response contains or how the wallet parameter affects usage. The missing output format is a significant gap given no output schema exists.

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 only parameter (wallet) is fully described in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond the schema, though it mentions cost which is unrelated to the wallet parameter.

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 explicitly states it provides a live computed BTC Stock-to-Flow signal, self-calculated from CoinGecko, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that cover other indicators. The mention of 'Finance Signal Bundle' adds slight ambiguity, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 the many sibling signal tools (e.g., processed_fear, processed_mvrv). The description only implies it's for BTC S2F but does not state exclusions or alternatives.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds useful computation details (percentile rank, momentum, trend verdict) and hints at monetization via 'Price 0.01 via x402 (USDC on Base)', but that sentence is ambiguous and it does not disclose rate limits, caching, failure modes, or side effects.

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 only two sentences and front-loads the main purpose, which is good. However, the second sentence, 'Turns raw series in Price 0.01 via x402 (USDC on Base)', is grammatically unclear and likely confuses more than it helps.

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?

With no output schema, the description does list the analytic components the user can expect, but it does not clarify the exact meaning of 'se_elpris', the response structure, or the x402 pricing behavior. An agent could invoke the tool, but there are lingering ambiguities around semantics and payment expectations.

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 only parameter, 'wallet', is already fully described in the schema, so the description is not required to repeat it. The description does add a related x402 payment hint, but it fails to clearly connect the wallet parameter to that payment mechanism, leaving some semantic ambiguity.

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 states that the tool returns a 'live computed signal' built on 'a processed analytics layer over energy' with specific indicators: 30-period percentile rank, 4-period momentum, and trend verdict. This is clear enough about what it does, though it never names 'electricity price' or 'Swedish elpris' explicitly, so it doesn't fully distinguish itself from energy/electricity siblings like signal_energy or processed_energy_eia.

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 phrase 'get live computed signal' and 'processed analytics layer' implies this tool is for obtaining pre-computed analytics rather than raw data. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and does not name any alternative or exclusion among the many processed_/signal_ siblings.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does add value by revealing a live computed nature and the USDC-on-Base price of 0.01 via x402, which is an important cost behavior. However, it does not explain credit consumption, response format, or any prerequisites beyond the optional wallet.

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 compact at roughly two sentences and front-loads the main purpose before the pricing detail. It loses a point for awkward punctuation and the unclear "T Price" phrasing, which could confuse an agent.

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 description covers the signal components and pricing, and no required parameters make invocation straightforward. However, it omits the geographic focus implied by the tool name and gives no basis for choosing this over sibling macroeconomic or signal tools, which weakens overall completeness.

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?

There is one optional wallet parameter and the input schema already describes it thoroughly, including the free-tier credit distinction. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3; the description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, which is acceptable here.

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 operation — "get live computed signal" — and names three concrete analytics components (30-period percentile rank, 4-period momentum, plain-language trend verdict). However, it never mentions "Singapore" even though the tool is named processed_singapore_econ, and "macroeconomic indicators" is too broad to distinguish this from many processed_* and signal_* siblings.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among dozens of similarly named processed_* and signal_* tools, the description gives no selection criteria, exclusions, or context such as "use for Singapore-specific macro signals".

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the price (0.01 via x402) and intraday validity, which are important behavioral traits. However, it does not mention the free-tier credits (though the schema does), potential failure modes, or the return structure beyond the 0-100 range.

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, each earning its place: the first defines what the signal is and its inputs, the second provides price and validity. No redundant or filler content.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the signal's nature, composition, range, validity, and price, which is largely sufficient. It omits practical payment-flow details and output format, but the wallet schema supplies free-tier context, making it reasonably complete.

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 description covers 100% of the single optional 'wallet' parameter, explaining the X-Wallet free tier and credits. The description text itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'get live computed signal' with a specific resource: 'Institutional momentum index (0-100) from gold, global equities, and US macro signals.' This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling processed_* tools by calling it a 'Finance Signal Bundle' and describing a composite index.

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 context is implied by the description (e.g., 'valid intraday' suggests short-term use), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like other processed_* tools or signal_* tools. No exclusions or alternative names are mentioned.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the signal is 'live' but 'lagged 1 day' and mentions a price of 0.01 via x402 (USDC on Base), which adds behavioral context. However, it does not describe the output format or any potential side effects, leaving 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, but the second sentence becomes garbled ('capitulation/a Price 0.01 via x402'), which reduces clarity and structural quality. It is not as clean as it could be.

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 low complexity (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential purpose and interpretation. However, it lacks details about the return value structure and the ambiguous 'a Price' statement leaves a gap, making it only minimally viable.

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 100% (the single optional 'wallet' parameter has a full description). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 it 'get live computed signal: BTC SOPR' from BGeometrics, with a specific metric and interpretation. This distinguishes it from sibling processed_* tools, which cover different indicators.

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 specific BTC SOPR metric, but no explicit when-to-use or alternatives are mentioned. The description lacks exclusion criteria or comparison to other processed_* tools.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does it well: it states the data source (SEC XBRL), the single-quarter caliber (cumulative values excluded), cross-company comparability, Chinese AI interpretation, and the 0.01 USDC price via x402. It does not detail possible payment side effects or failure modes, but the core behavior and cost are transparent.

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 front-loaded with 'Finance Signal Bundle - get live computed signal' and every clause adds selection-relevant detail. It is dense and long due to the ticker list and bilingual content, but contains no filler.

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 single-optional-parameter tool, the description provides enough scope, data source, metrics, language, and cost information to select it confidently. The main gap is no explicit output format or differentiation from overlapping siblings such as processed_us_stock_tech and signal_us_mega_cap.

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 100%, and the sole optional wallet parameter is already documented in the schema; the description adds no parameter-specific meaning. The pricing rail is useful context but does not explain how the wallet parameter behaves.

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 uses a specific verb (get) and resource ('live computed signal') and enumerates exactly 15 tickers plus the metrics returned (revenue, net profit, net margin, annualized ROE, debt ratio). It is clear, but it never names a sibling or explicitly distinguishes itself from processed_stock_quote or signal_us_mega_cap.

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 use case (latest single-quarter fundamentals for these large US companies) is implied by the ticker and metric list, and the data-source/caliber notes reinforce it. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or comparison to any of the many sibling signals.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose important behavior: it is live, computed, and costs 0.05 via x402 on Base. However, it does not clarify whether this is a read-only operation, whether credits are consumed per call, or what side effects or response behavior to expect.

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 dense, mildly disorganized sentence. It front-loads the core purpose but mixes computation details, pricing, and a likely typo ('plai Price') into one run-on clause. It is not egregiously long, but structure and polish are below par.

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 medium complexity, the absence of an output schema, and a large sibling family, the description leaves important gaps: it never lists the 11 series, defines what the computed signal looks like, or states exactly how the 0.05 fee interacts with the optional wallet and free credits.

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 100% for the only parameter, wallet, and the description also mentions the free credit tiers. The main text adds payment context but does not materially deepen the meaning of the wallet parameter beyond what the schema already says.

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 identifies a clear action ('get live computed signal') and gives concrete detail about what the signal is made of: 11 series, 30-period percentile rank, 4-period momentum, and cross-sectional ranking. It lacks sibling differentiation, so it does not fully distinguish processed_stock_quote from the many other processed_* and signal_* tools.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as signal_stock_report, processed_us_stock_tech, or processed_us_stock_short. The payment/free-tier note is operational context, not usage routing.

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