find_liquidity_sweeps

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does a solid job: it explains the exact behavioral condition for a sweep and what the result contains (the sweeping candle and every level it took out). It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or has no side effects, but the analytical nature and result-focused wording make the behavior reasonably transparent.

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-loaded with the core concept, followed by a clear definition and result behavior. It avoids unnecessary filler, though the first sentence's phrasing is slightly awkward. Overall, every sentence earns its place and the structure is easy for an agent to parse.

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 exists, so return values do not need to be fully explained, and the description gives the key concept and result contents. However, because there are no annotations, no explicit usage exclusions, and no real parameter semantics, the description leaves meaningful gaps for a 5-parameter tool with two siblings.

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 there are 5 parameters, so the description needed to compensate. Instead it only says 'Same input options as analyze_structure,' which points elsewhere rather than explaining coin, limit, candles, interval, or include_candles. This is minimal added semantic value over the raw schema.

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 identifies the action ('Find stop-hunts') and defines the resource precisely: a sweep is a structural break that pushes through prior swing levels and closes back inside. It also distinguishes the tool's result by stating each result names the sweeping candle and every level taken out, which makes it distinct from generic structure analysis.

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 when to use the tool (when you need to identify liquidity sweeps/stop-hunts) and references 'Same input options as analyze_structure,' but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over find_blocks or analyze_structure. There are no exclusions or alternative routing conditions, so the usage guidance is mostly implicit.

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