get_cfd_microstructure

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two genuinely useful behavioral facts: data is 'live' (MT5 FVGs) and the call costs '$0.01 USDC on Base', which tells the agent this is a paid invocation. It says nothing about latency, caching, refresh cadence, or failure behavior for illiquid symbols, which matters for a live-market tool.

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?

It is a single sentence with no filler, but it is an unstructured comma-chain of jargon that is not front-loaded toward the decision the agent needs to make. Terms like 'institutional ECN calibrated' and 'spread-to-ATR execution cost ratios' are packed in without ordering or hierarchy, making it hard to scan.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey return values, and it does list the metric families. However, it never explains what the derived metrics mean (how 'scalping suitability' is scored, what the spread-to-ATR ratio thresholds imply), so an agent knows the field names but not how to interpret the response.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents the optional ticker and the omit-for-all behavior, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds nothing beyond listing symbols the schema already covers, and it enumerates roughly ten tickers while the schema promises 14, a minor inconsistency that could confuse an agent about the full universe.

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 verb 'Get' plus the resource 'cfd microstructure' and an explicit enumeration of returned metrics (ECN spreads, commissions, M1 ATR, spread-to-ATR ratios, FVGs) makes the purpose concrete and unmistakable. Sibling tools are entirely unrelated domains, so no differentiation is needed. It falls short of 5 because the sentence describes the payload rather than the analytical question the tool answers.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternative to pick. An agent must infer usage purely from the metric list. The only implicit routing cue is the symbol set, which is not framed as guidance.

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