market_get_smart_volume

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares 'NO SIDE EFFECTS' and adds a LIMITATIONS section disclosing that on CFD/Forex feeds volume is tick-based and the analysis is inferred/heuristic. It stops short of describing the response shape, but the read-only and reliability caveats are genuinely useful context.

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 with the core action, then cleanly sectioned into WHEN TO USE and LIMITATIONS. The metric list is dense but each item earns its place by defining the analytical output; no filler sentences.

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 no-output-schema, six-optional-param analysis tool the description covers purpose, usage triggers, side-effect profile, and data-reliability caveats. It could say more about what the response contains, but the essential invocation guidance is present.

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 (session, lookback, expectedTf, sensitivity, expectedSymbol, includeMultiTimeframe) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level detail, 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?

Specific verb ('Analyze') plus an enumerated set of analytical outputs (RVOL, robust z-score, Wyckoffian effort vs result, absorption, initiative moves, exhaustion, sweeps, accumulation/distribution). This clearly scopes it to volume/activity analysis, distinguishing it from sibling tools like market_detect_structure or market_detect_zones.

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 an explicit 'WHEN TO USE' section naming concrete triggers (volume anomalies, liquidity sweeps, participation conviction). It gives clear selection context but does not name any sibling alternative or state when not to use it.

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