Get Volume Profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable interpretive context about high and low volume nodes—calling them 'shelves' and 'breakout levels'—which helps the agent understand the behavioral meaning of the output beyond raw numbers. No contradiction with 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?

The description is concise—three sentences that front-load the core definition and then enrich it with a meaningful interpretive paragraph. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines, the second frames the purpose, and the third explains the significance of the outputs. No wasted words.

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?

Without an output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what the agent will receive. It enumerates the key components (point of control, value area, high/low nodes) and interprets them, which is sufficient for an agent to understand the result. It does not specify the exact return structure, but the conceptual completeness is strong given the tool's complexity.

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?

All 5 parameters have schema descriptions covering 100%, so the structural burden is already met. The description does not directly elaborate on parameters, but its conceptual explanation of volume profile indirectly clarifies why parameters like buckets and value_area_pct matter. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding extra semantic depth.

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 that the tool provides volume-by-price data for a symbol, listing specific outputs (point of control, value area, high/low volume nodes). It distinguishes itself from price and oscillator tools by emphasizing the auction-theory perspective, making its unique purpose unmistakable.

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 provides a clear use case: when you need to understand where the market previously agreed on value and where it refused to trade. It contrasts itself with price and oscillators, implying these alternatives cannot give this reading. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it stops short of full explicit alternatives.

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