fvg

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It mentions output attributes (gap size, age, fill status) but doesn't explain CE, data freshness, rate limits, or side effects. The description lacks sufficient disclosure for a trading data tool.

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 short and includes an example, but the first sentence is repeated verbatim, causing unnecessary redundancy. It could be more concise by removing the duplicate.

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?

Given 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, how to interpret FVG zones, or the meaning of attributes like age and fill status. The example is helpful but insufficient.

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 the schema already documents parameters. The description adds context via the example but does not explain parameter interactions or provide meaning beyond the schema. 'CE (50%)' is mentioned but not linked to any parameter.

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 states it provides Fair Value Gap zones with specific attributes (CE 50%, gap size, age, fill status, distance from price) and uses a standard ICT/LuxAlgo approach. It distinguishes from siblings by being the only tool for FVG zones.

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 gives an example and mentions 'Crypto or stocks' and 'Standard timeframes match TradingView candles,' but does not explicitly say when to use this tool vs alternatives like other indicators. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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