fvg

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses useful traits such as the returned fields, that timeframes match TradingView candles, and the default active-only vs filled behavior (implied by the schema). However it omits auth requirements, rate limits, and pagination/response-shape behavior for a data-fetch endpoint.

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 opening sentence is duplicated verbatim ('Fair Value Gap zones ... distance from price' appears twice), which is wasted space and suggests a generation error. The remaining content is otherwise front-loaded and tight, but the verbatim repetition violates the 'every sentence earns its place' standard.

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?

For a six-parameter data tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the purpose and partially the return fields, plus an example call. It is adequate but leaves gaps around return shape, pagination, and output units that an agent would want before invoking.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters thoroughly. The description adds essentially no parameter meaning beyond the schema, aside from the example pairing symbol and timeframe, which earns the baseline 3.

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 names the concrete resource (Fair Value Gap zones, standard ICT/LuxAlgo) and enumerates the returned fields (CE 50%, gap size, age, fill status, distance from price), which resolves the opaque tool name 'fvg'. It does not, however, distinguish itself from any sibling indicator tool, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance. It mentions 'Crypto or stocks' and gives a URL example, but never tells the agent how this differs from siblings like liquidity_levels, atr, or ohlcv.

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