analyze_structure

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it states the read-only nature, the Hyperliquid public endpoint source, the fallback example behavior, and the effect of include_candles. It does not cover edge cases like conflicting coin and candles inputs, but the core behavior is clearly disclosed.

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: a one-line summary, a list of return contents, input-mode instructions, and a targeted note about drawing. Every sentence carries useful information, and the most important behavioral details are front-loaded.

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?

For a 5-parameter tool with no annotations, the description covers return values, data sources, input modes, and the include_candles use case, while the output schema handles return structure. It is slightly incomplete regarding sibling-tool routing and ambiguity when both coin and candles are supplied, but overall an agent can invoke it correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains coin formats and their effect, the candles alternative, the neither/default example, and include_candles semantics. Limit and interval are not explicitly described, but the default values are in the schema and the example hints at interval formatting.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read market structure' and immediately names the core outputs: trend, ChoCh, and BOS. This makes the tool's function unmistakable and semantically distinguishes it from siblings focused on liquidity sweeps and 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 gives clear conditional guidance for input modes: supply a coin, supply your own candles, or supply neither for an example. It also explains when to set include_candles=true. However, it never mentions when to choose this tool over find_liquidity_sweeps or find_blocks, so alternative-tool selection is left implicit.

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