get_hip4_order_flow

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description only needs to add context beyond these. It adds that the tool returns time-bucketed metrics and requires Pro+ tier, which is valuable behavioral context not covered by annotations.

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?

Two sentences: first states purpose and tier, second explains return types and legacy coin forms. No redundant words, information density is high.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are already detailed. The description covers the main purpose, tier requirement, and data type. Pagination and parameters are handled by the schema. For a 6-parameter tool, this is sufficient.

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 description adds little beyond what the schema already provides. It mentions legacy coin forms and default time range, but these duplicate schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('HIP-4 order flow aggregation') with clear scope ('Pro+ tier', 'for a coin'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings by focusing on aggregated order flow metrics, not raw trades or order books.

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 the Pro+ tier restriction but does not explicitly compare this tool to alternatives like get_hip4_trades or get_hip3_order_flow. There is no guidance on when to use this versus other order flow or HIP-4 tools, leaving the agent to infer from names.

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