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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that results are 'today's' (time-sensitive) and that it's research/education only, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what errors or edge cases occur, or any side effects. The safety profile is left implicit.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key information (ranked, today, one instrument) and immediately lists the output components. No wasted words; every phrase adds value.

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 gives a solid overview of the output (waypoints, trade idea) but lacks details on the number of paths, output structure, error handling, or any constraints (e.g., symbol validity). With no output schema, more detail would be helpful, though the tool is simple (one param) and the core purpose is clear.

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%, so the description must clarify the parameter. It implies 'symbol' is an instrument identifier, which provides minimal semantic value, but it does not specify the expected format, case sensitivity, or how the symbol maps to the returned paths. Adequate but not detailed.

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 states a specific action (get) on a specific resource (ranked session paths) with clear scope (one instrument, today) and enumerates output contents (waypoints, trade idea with entry zone, invalidation, target). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_levels or list_symbols.

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 a usage constraint ('Research/education only') but does not explain when to choose this tool over alternatives. It neither mentions sibling tools nor provides any conditional guidance, so an agent has no direction on when this is the right call.

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