get_liquidity_zones

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behaviors. It states the detection algorithm (clusters of equal highs/lows) and output sorting, but omits details like computational cost, data requirements, or how parameters like tolerance_pct affect results. It is moderately transparent but lacks depth.

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 two sentences totaling 40 words, with no filler. The first sentence clearly defines the tool's purpose, and the second describes the output. Every sentence adds value.

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 five parameters (one required), no schema coverage, and no annotations, the description should explain how each parameter influences the detection algorithm. It does not, leaving the agent without enough context to set parameters correctly for specific analysis goals. The return structure is only vaguely described.

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%, meaning no parameter is explained in the description. The description does not add any meaning beyond the input schema's titles and defaults, leaving all five parameters (limit, symbol, timeframe, min_touches, tolerance_pct) unexplained.

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 specific verb 'detect' and resource 'resting-liquidity levels', defines them as clusters of equal highs (buy-side) and lows (sell-side), and mentions output characteristics (sorted by distance, touch count, swept status). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_fair_value_gaps or get_order_blocks.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. The agent is left to infer usage context from the purpose alone.

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