ox-alpha signals

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the limited scope (only the current #1 signal, not the full universe) and the cost behavior (free), but it does not explicitly describe the output format, potential side effects, or any access requirements. 'Free sample' implies read-only behavior but does not state it.

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 compact sentences front-load the key fact ('Free sample') and then cover scope, cost, and alternatives without redundancy. Every phrase 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?

For a no-parameter, no-output-schema preview tool, the description conveys the essential return value (current #1 top-ranked signal), its free cost, and where to get the fuller results. It leaves some ambiguity about what exactly a 'signal' contains, but the tool is simple enough that this is a minor gap.

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 tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty with 100% coverage, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 is appropriate because no compensation 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 clearly defines the tool as providing a free sample of the current #1 top-ranked signal, which is a specific resource and action. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by contrasting the free single result with the paid full top-5 and 20-pair report/signals 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 explicitly states when this tool is appropriate (free sample of the current #1 signal, no payment) and directs users needing more data to the paid report/signals tools. This gives an agent a clear selection heuristic between preview and the fuller 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states the $0.001 USDC payment requirement, the returned fields, and the composite score range. It does not mention response format or failure behavior, but the paid nature and output scope are valuable and clearly 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 two tight sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence front-loads the tool's purpose and outputs, and the second covers the parameter format and payment requirement, making every sentence 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 single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides the essential invocation details: pair format, output fields, and cost. It could be more complete by describing the response structure or error cases, but the core information an agent needs to call it successfully is present.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema provides only the parameter name 'pair' with zero description coverage. The description compensates fully by defining the expected format as a Coinbase pair id and giving the concrete example BTC-USDC, which is exactly what an agent needs to construct a valid invocation.

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 'Single-pair crypto lookup', giving a specific verb and focused resource scope. It clearly enumerates the outputs: USDC price, composite signal score (-100..+100), ATR%, and reasons, making the tool's purpose concrete and distinguishable from broader tools like signals or report.

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 is implied through 'Single-pair crypto lookup' and the Coinbase pair id example, which tells an agent this tool is for one specific pair. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools or state when not to use it, leaving the routing decision partly 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 transparency burden; it discloses a required payment of $0.001 USDC and clarifies that the output is AI-operated market intelligence, not advice. It does not detail payment mechanics or failure behavior, but the key side effect is stated.

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 short sentences convey the tool's output, scope, non-advice nature, and cost. Every clause adds necessary information, and the main deliverable is 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?

For a parameterless tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential invocation context: what the report contains, its universe of pairs, the cost, and its status as non-advice. No critical information appears 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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is complete by definition. The description correctly stays focused on behavior rather than pretending to document arguments.

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 deliverable: top-5 crypto long candidates across 20 Coinbase USDC pairs, including score, price, ATR%, and reasons. It is more specific than sibling tools like price or signals, but it is phrased as a noun phrase rather than an explicit verbed action.

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 signals, preview, or price. The description states the report is AI-operated and not advice, but it does not describe selection conditions 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 exist, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists informational content, which implies a read-only operation, but it never explicitly states there are no side effects, no authentication requirements, or that only static service metadata is returned. Without an output schema, the description leaves the actual response 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 one short sentence with no filler, making it easy to parse. The 'Free:' prefix is somewhat cryptic—it could refer to the tool's cost or the service's content—and slightly detracts from clarity, but overall the size is well matched to the tool's simplicity.

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 zero-parameter informational tool, the description provides the main content areas and names the service, which is adequate for basic invocation. However, it does not describe the response format, the relationship to sibling tools, or what 'x402' and 'discovery links' mean. The lack of an output schema makes this missing context more significant.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is trivially 100%. With no parameters to document, the description does not need to add meaning beyond the schema, and it correctly omits any parameter details.

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 makes clear that the tool provides service-related information: endpoints, pricing, x402 payment setup, and discovery links for the ox-alpha signals service. The verb is implied rather than explicit, and there is no sibling differentiation, but the content is specific and distinguishable from preview, price, report, and 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?

No guidance is given about when to use service_info versus preview, price, report, or signals. The description lists content categories but does not say whether this is the introductory overview tool or when an agent should prefer a sibling. The usage context is entirely left 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It meaningfully reveals that the signals are AI-operated and disclosed, refresh every 10 minutes, and incur a payment cost. These traits go beyond the core function and inform the agent of nontrivial operational behavior, though payment mechanics and failure modes are not detailed.

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 core offering, followed by essential operational facts (update frequency, payment). Every sentence contributes distinct information: what the tool returns, its AI/disclosed nature, freshness, and cost. No filler or repetition exists.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete: it names the exchange, pair count, score range, included data fields, update cadence, and payment requirement. The only notable gap is that it does not describe the payment flow or response format, but the essential invocation context is present.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by enumerating what the tool returns—scores, price, ATR%, and reasons—which helps the agent interpret outputs even though there is no output schema. It does not need to explain parameters since none exist.

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 function: providing ranked crypto signal scores for 20 USDC pairs on Coinbase. It enumerates specific output fields (score range, price, ATR%, reasons), which makes the tool's purpose concrete and distinguishable from the broader sibling set. However, there is no explicit action verb such as 'get' or 'retrieve,' so it falls just short of the highest bar.

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 includes operational prerequisites like 'Updated every 10 min' and 'Requires payment of $0.001 USDC,' but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like preview, price, or report. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, leaving usage decisions to inference.

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