Market Profile: daily TPO profile of a perpetual, point of control, value area, initial balance, naked POCs

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

Annotations only cover readOnly and openWorld; the description adds substantial behavior: data provenance (ByKaranteli's own one-minute Binance USDT-M bars), the exact construction (30-minute TPO periods, 0.05% buckets of the day's open, 70% value area, first-hour IB, volume POC), and a documented empty-result path ('no_profile'). It does not mention rate limits, latency, or whether the last 60-day naked-POC window is truncated by the days parameter.

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?

It is front-loaded with the activation condition and then the return payload, with no filler sentences. The second sentence is very long and dense with parenthetical method detail, which slightly hurts scanability but every clause carries information.

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 no output schema, the description must carry the return shape, and it does: per-day rows, naked POCs, latest-day bucket profile, plus the no_profile failure mode. It is complete enough to invoke correctly; only the interaction between the days parameter and the fixed 60-day naked-POC window is left ambiguous.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (days 1..30 default 7, symbol pattern) are already fully documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds context about what 'days' means in output terms (one row per closed UTC day, naked POCs over the last 60 recorded days) but does not reconcile how the 60-day naked-POC window interacts with the days cap.

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 first sentence names the specific resource (Market Profile / TPO profile) and enumerates the concepts it resolves — POC, value area, initial balance, naked POCs — which no sibling tool covers. A reader can tell this apart from get_venue_profile or get_series without opening the schema.

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 opens with an explicit trigger ('Call this when the user asks about a perpetual's Market Profile, TPO profile, POC...'), giving the agent a clear activation condition. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or which sibling to prefer for adjacent questions (e.g. get_venue_profile, get_series).

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