find_blocks

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

The description discloses meaningful analytical behavior: blocks are reported on the current impulse leg, organized by Fibonacci pullback zones, and the current price zone is identified. However, with no annotations, the description does not mention data requirements, limitations, side effects, or failure behavior.

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: the first sentence gives the core purpose, the second explains the output behavior, and the third references the sibling tool without repeating schema details. Every sentence 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 behavior is covered and an output schema exists, so return values are less critical. However, parameter meanings are unresolved and no guidance is given for choosing this tool over its siblings, so an agent would likely need to inspect analyze_structure before calling this tool 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%, and the description provides no direct explanation of coin, limit, candles, interval, or include_candles. The reference to 'Same input options as analyze_structure' is a useful pointer but does not itself convey parameter semantics.

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 concrete resources: fair value gaps, order blocks, and pullback zones. It explains what the tool reports and how those blocks are grouped, which clearly differentiates it from siblings like analyze_structure and find_liquidity_sweeps.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The only comparative statement, 'Same input options as analyze_structure,' addresses input compatibility rather than tool selection, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and output description.

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