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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it discloses the pricing model ($0.005 USDC per call via x402), the output volume cap (five levels per side), the derivation methods (clustered daily swing pivots, high-volume nodes, round numbers), and the per-level fields including strength scale and touch count. It omits caching, latency, or failure behavior, but the payment and derivation context is unusually informative.

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?

Three short sentences ordered as what-it-is, what-it-returns, what-it-costs; every clause carries information and nothing is redundant.

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 takes on the return-value burden and does so thoroughly by listing the level fields and the nearest-level-each-side addition. The main shortfall is that it never explains how a caller should act on the result or the resolution/timeframe of the levels, but it is sufficient 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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%, with the enum enumerating every supported instrument, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax, timeframe, or formatting meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which lands at the 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 names a specific resource (support and resistance levels) and details exactly what the output contains, so an agent knows this computes technical levels rather than a regime or probability verdict. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_market_regime or get_target_probability, which keeps it at a 4 rather than 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 statement of when to reach for this tool versus the other analysis tools in the family, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. Usage is only implied by the technical-analysis nature of the resource.

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