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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description adds meaningful behavior: wall_tracking is populated by a 1-minute cron, so persistence granularity is limited, and only watchlist symbols have history. The mention of >40% shrinkage as a spoofing signal is also useful context. It does not, however, resolve what happens for the many enum symbols outside the 10-symbol list.

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 compact sentences, each useful: the function, the data-source/availability warning, and the signal use cases. There is no fluff, though the symbol-scope inconsistency makes it less crisp than 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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should clarify return behavior, but it does not. More importantly, the symbol scope is contradictory: the description claims only 10 symbols have stored history, while the schema enum exposes 50 symbols as valid. An agent cannot confidently decide whether calling with, say, TRXUSDT is valid, will return empty data, or will error.

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 adds light context such as 'N menit lalu' for lookback and 'wall kandidat' for priceLevel, but it does not materially expand beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 function: checking whether a wall candidate at a price still persists compared to N minutes ago, using historical data from wall_tracking. This is distinguishable from sibling order-book tools like depth/delta/imbalance. However, the 'PENTING' line lists only 10 watchlist symbols while the schema enum contains 50, muddying the exact 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 gives explicit use cases: verifying absorption signals and detecting spoofing via sudden wall shrinkage. It also gives a hard exclusion: symbols without stored history are not available. It does not name alternative tools for non-watchlist symbols, 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.