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. It discloses the detection logic (candle pushed through swing levels before closing back inside) and the result contents ('Each result names the sweeping candle and every level it took out'). This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the name and schema, though it does not cover edge cases like no-sweep results or API-specific behaviors.

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 well-structured: a one-line purpose, a precise definition of a sweep, a statement about result contents, and a pointer to sibling input compatibility. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, and the core concept is 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?

The core concept and output contents are well covered, and the presence of an output schema means return values need not be fully described. However, the tool has five unannotated parameters and no descriptions for them, and the usage guidance relies on knowing analyze_structure. It is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps in parameter understanding and sibling-tool selection.

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 does not explain what any of the five parameters do. 'Same input options as analyze_structure' defers to a sibling tool rather than documenting coin, limit, candles, interval, and include_candles. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema-level documentation.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Find stop-hunts' / liquidity sweeps. It also defines a sweep precisely as a structural break that pushes through prior swing levels before closing back inside, which separates it from a clean break. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tools beyond mentioning 'Same input options as analyze_structure.'

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 definition of what constitutes a sweep implies when this tool is useful, and 'Same input options as analyze_structure' hints at compatibility with that sibling tool. But it never states explicit conditions for when to prefer find_liquidity_sweeps over analyze_structure or find_blocks, nor does it give exclusion criteria. Usage guidance is present but mostly implicit.

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