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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the aggregation structure (candle x price bin) and the data sources (Binance + Bybit trade streams), but it does not disclose limitations, expected latency, or how the returned footprint is shaped.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One dense sentence conveys the resource, granularity, metrics, and data sources with no filler. It is appropriately 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?

The description is a useful summary but incomplete for invocation: all three parameters are undocumented in text, there is no output schema, and no guidance on parameter units or allowed values. For a tool with no annotations, this is a meaningful 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explain `step`, `minutes`, or acceptable `symbol` values. It only hints that symbols are 'core perp' symbols, so agents must guess the semantics of the numeric parameters.

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's output: order-flow footprint data broken down per candle and price bin, with taker buy/sell USD volume and delta. This is specific enough to stand apart from sibling market-data tools like get_cvd or get_orderbook_heatmap, though it omits an explicit action verb.

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 choose this tool over alternatives such as get_microstructure or get_cvd. The description does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer selection based on the tool name alone.

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