get_footprint_chart

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about using real Databento tick data and the specific patterns detected, enhancing transparency. No contradictions.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose. 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 explains the main functionality and inputs but omits details about output format or structure. Given no output schema, additional clarity on what the tool returns would improve completeness. Annotations are rich, but output expectations are vague.

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 has 75% coverage (3 of 4 parameters described). The description provides high-level context for footprint chart analysis but does not add significant details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as schema already handles most meaning.

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 computes a footprint chart for a symbol, detailing bid/ask volume per price level, and detects specific patterns (absorption, imbalance, delta exhaustion). It distinguishes itself from siblings as a specialized analytical tool rather than a simple data retrieval.

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 lists capabilities (detecting absorption, imbalance, delta exhaustion) which imply when to use, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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