get_fair_value_gaps

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

With no annotations, the description must carry full behavioral transparency. It only states the core detection function, without disclosing auth needs, rate limits, or what 'fill/mitigation status' entails. The behavior is implied but not elaborated.

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 a single sentence with no fluff, but it may be too brief for a tool with five parameters. It front-loads the core purpose but lacks structure for detailed guidance.

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?

Given the complexity of 5 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is insufficient. The presence of an output schema partially compensates, but the tool lacks usage guidelines and parameter context, making it incomplete.

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 0%, and the description adds no information about the five parameters (symbol, limit, timeframe, min_gap_pct, unfilled_only). Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description provides no additional semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Detect') and resource ('3-candle fair value gaps'), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like 'get_liquidity_zones' or 'get_market_structure'. It also specifies the additional feature of fill/mitigation status.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites or context that would help an agent choose between this and sibling tools.

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