get_market_structure

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden and it does a decent job: it discloses that this is a computed heuristic, that it operates on real candles, and exactly how swing_strength is used. It does not discuss error behavior or prerequisites, but the algorithmic caveat is valuable.

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 compact and front-loads the core purpose, then drills into the algorithm and output. The all-caps 'HEURÍSTICA computada' is slightly abrupt, but it adds useful context without excessive verbosity.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to elaborate return values. It covers the algorithm, core parameters, and output semantics at a usable level. The main missing contextual element is explicit relationship to sibling tools and a clearer definition of lookback.

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%, but the description explains swing_strength as the candle count on each side of a fractal. Symbol, interval, and lookback are left to their names and defaults; lookback in particular could use more explanation since it determines the analysis window.

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 gives a specific verb-resource pairing: it computes market structure from real candles. It further defines the exact output: pivot fractals labeled HH/LH/HL/LL and a trend reading of uptrend/downtrend/range. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_indicators, detect_fvg, or detect_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 says what the tool computes but gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_indicators, detect_fvg, or detect_order_blocks. There is no mention of usage context, exclusions, or complementary tools.

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