Swiftedge order flow

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 data semantics: range in UTC, positioning levels are estimates, liquidations are 'measured', and responses link to an external heatmap. It does not say whether the call is read-only, whether it requires auth, rate limits, or how fresh/cached the snapshot is.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and contained in a single sentence with no wasted filler. The long comma-separated content list is dense and would read better structured, but every item conveys real returned data.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns, and it does thoroughly, covering price, range, order book walls, liquidity, funding, OI, large trades, liquidation buckets and links. Only operational facts like access requirements and freshness are missing, which is minor for a read-only snapshot tool.

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% and the single enum parameter is fully self-documenting, so the baseline applies. The description adds only the framing 'for one market', which restates the parameter's purpose without new format or constraint detail.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Live order flow snapshot for one market') and enumerates the data it returns, so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from list_markets, but the singular-market scope makes the distinction obvious.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'for one market' suggests detail-level lookup versus a market enumeration. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as list_markets.

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

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a useful return detail (each market includes a link to its live order book heatmap), but it never states that this is a read-only operation or anything about ordering, freshness, or coverage limits.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Both the resource and the notable return content fit in one clause pair.

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 zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it says what is listed and one field each entry carries. Minor gaps remain around entry ordering and whether the heatmap links are always present.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the schema is complete by virtue of being empty.

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 gives a specific verb ("List") and resource ("the markets Swiftedge covers"), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_market_snapshot, leaving the list-vs-snapshot relationship implicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent would infer this is a discovery step used to find a market before calling get_market_snapshot. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of the sibling tool, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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