find_blocks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It explains the analysis sequence (current impulse leg, then per Fibonacci zone) and that the tool reports the zone price is currently in. This makes the read-only, analytical behavior concrete, even though it does not explicitly state side-effect status or data dependencies.

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?

Three sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by useful behavioral detail and a cross-reference. No filler. The cross-reference is terse but earns its place.

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 output schema presumably covers return values, and the behavior is well described. However, with 5 optional parameters, no annotations, and no selection guidance versus siblings, the description leaves the agent to infer input constraints and when this tool is the right choice.

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%, and the description provides no explanation of coin, limit, candles, interval, or include_candles. The only parameter-related hint is 'Same input options as analyze_structure,' which defers to another tool rather than clarifying defaults, constraints, or formats.

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 names specific objects (fair value gaps, order blocks, pullback zones) and a concrete reporting behavior (impulse leg, Fibonacci zones, current price zone). It does not explicitly contrast itself with analyze_structure or find_liquidity_sweeps, but the resource and scope are clear enough for an agent to tell it apart.

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 implies usage when block locations within Fibonacci zones are needed, but it does not state when to prefer this tool over its siblings or when not to use it. The note 'Same input options as analyze_structure' addresses input compatibility, not selection criteria.

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