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

The description discloses data sources (levels_engine + Hyperliquid mids), the three timeframes and their lookback periods, and the structural distinction between nearest intraday levels and swing levels. This far exceeds the readOnlyHint annotation and gives the agent a precise behavioral model.

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 every clause adds unique information: detection timeframes, percentage thresholds, field names, and REST endpoint equivalence. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses clear notation to separate concepts.

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, the description thoroughly covers how levels are computed, what fields are returned, and how to interpret nearest vs. structure levels. The output schema handles return values, and the REST endpoint reference ensures data parity.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by showing example coin values and explaining that the coin parameter selects the asset. It also defines output fields like timeframe, distance_pct, and confirmed_by that depend on this parameter, adding meaning 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 opens with 'Support/resistance levels for a coin' and specifies example coins (BTC, ETH, SOL). It clearly identifies the resource (levels) and the action (get), and distinguishes itself from sibling market-data tools by focusing on price level structure.

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 its niche via '[DRILL-DOWN]' and explains the coin parameter requirement, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. It provides clear context for when an agent would retrieve level-based structure versus other market data tools.

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