chainvectorOrderflowCvd

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds behavioral context beyond the schema by explaining that CVD is cross-exchange aggregated and that rising CVD indicates net aggressive buying, plus a warning about fade signals. It does not disclose all caveats (e.g., return format, latency), but it is informative.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core definition, followed by interpretation and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool's purpose and interpretation, which is sufficient for a data metric tool with well-described parameters. It lacks a detailed return format specification, but the absence of an output schema means the description covers the most critical context. Overall, it is complete enough for the agent to select and use the tool correctly.

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 parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, which already explains symbol substring matching, exchange aggregation, and interval enums.

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 what the tool does: 'buy vs sell taker volume per bucket, cross-exchange aggregated.' It specifies the resource (CVD) and the metric (taker order-flow), making it distinct from sibling tools like orderbook imbalance or funding.

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?

Provides clear usage context: 'Confirm a direction before entering: flow against the trade is the classic fade signal.' This tells the agent when to use the tool (before entering trades) and how to interpret the data, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools for comparison.

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