market_get_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does meaningful work: 'NO SIDE EFFECTS' declares the read-only safety profile, 'single deterministic call' signals stable repeatable output, and 'Requires price bars loaded on chart' names a precondition that would otherwise cause silent failure. It omits error behavior and does not describe the response payload.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by labeled WHEN TO USE and LIMITATIONS clauses; every sentence earns its place and an agent can skim the labels for exactly the facts it needs. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

For a 6-parameter, all-optional read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage trigger, precondition, and side-effect status. Its one real gap is return-shape detail: the enumerated dimension list hints at contents but does not tell the agent what fields or structure to expect back.

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 all six parameters (expectedTf, candleCount, includeZones, expectedSymbol, includeStructure, includeIndicators) are already documented in the schema with defaults and constraints. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb (Get) and resource (market context) and enumerates the dimensions returned: trend, regime, key indicators, volume, market structure, zones. This clearly distinguishes it from narrower siblings like market_detect_structure and market_detect_zones, though it never names them explicitly.

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 labeled 'WHEN TO USE' clause gives a clear condition: orienting on a ticker/timeframe before planning actions or answering analysis queries. It does not name alternatives (e.g. market_detect_structure for structure only) or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a full routing rule.

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