detect_fvg

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It explicitly discloses this is a computed heuristic and not an exchange fact, and it details the output state (open/partially_filled/filled) and how detection works. This is a strong disclosure beyond mere tool naming.

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 well-structured: it leads with the core definition, then explains key parameters, and ends with a crucial caveat about heuristic nature. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient.

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?

The description covers the tool's core logic, parameter effects, and output structure, and since an output schema is present, the return format need not be restated. It misses minor edge-case info (e.g., behavior when no FVGs found), but overall provides sufficient context for correct invocation.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must explain parameters. It clearly describes the meaning and effect of only_open and min_gap_pct, but leaves symbol, interval, and lookback unaddressed. While the latter are self-explanatory, a more complete explanation would raise the score; as is, it partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 explicitly states the tool detects Fair Value Gaps and provides the exact algorithmic conditions (e.g., low[i+1] > high[i-1] for bullish), clearly differentiating it from siblings like detect_order_blocks by its specific resource (FVG) and logic. The purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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 explains the tool's functionality and how parameters modify behavior (only_open, min_gap_pct), which implies when it might be used. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as detect_order_blocks, nor does it provide any when-not-to-use guidance.

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