get_hip3_order_flow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral context such as 'Symbols are CASE-SENSITIVE' and the tier requirement, but these are minor. It does not disclose potential side effects or performance characteristics beyond what annotations provide. The added value is moderate, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and tier, and the second adds critical usage notes and output description. Every word is efficient and informative.

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 covers the essential purpose, tier, case-sensitivity, and output metrics. Given that the input schema is fully documented and an output schema exists, the description is nearly complete. It could mention pagination or time range options, but those are covered in the schema, so this is not a major gap.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the case-sensitivity note and mentions interval default, both already present in the schema. It adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema, thus no improvement over baseline.

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 tool's action: 'Get HIP-3 order flow aggregation'. It specifies the resource (HIP-3 order flow) and the kind of data returned ('aggregated order placement, cancellation, and fill metrics'). It also includes the tier requirement (Build+) and a concrete symbol example, making the purpose unambiguous. The name itself differentiates from siblings like get_hip4_order_flow.

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 mentions 'Build+ tier' which implies a usage restriction, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it, nor are sibling tools like get_order_flow or get_hip4_order_flow referenced for comparison. The single usage hint (tier) is insufficient for guiding an agent on tool selection.

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