get_order_blocks

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'mitigation status' as an output detail, but does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, required permissions, computational cost, side effects). The description is too sparse to inform safe usage.

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 extremely concise (one sentence), but it fails to cover essential aspects like parameters, usage, or behavior. It is under-specified, not efficiently informative. Every sentence should earn its place; here it barely does.

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 (4 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations), the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain how to configure the tool for typical tasks, nor does it leverage the existing output schema. An output schema exists, but the description still lacks necessary input behavior context.

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 coverage is 0%, yet the description provides no information about parameters. The 4 parameters (symbol, limit, timeframe, impulse_pct) remain entirely unexplained. The description adds zero value beyond the schema's raw JSON structure.

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 the tool's purpose: detecting order blocks with mitigation status. It uses a specific verb ('detect') and resource ('order blocks'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_fair_value_gaps or get_market_structure, but the concept is distinct enough.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context on prerequisites, typical scenarios, or when not to use it. Users must infer based solely on the concept name.

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