liquidity_levels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints at output content (sweep/taken status, pools, untaken targets) but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, payload size, or how the levels are returned. For a data tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a substantial gap.

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 core sentence is stated twice verbatim, wasting roughly half the description and pushing the useful example further down. The example is well placed, but the duplication is a clear structural defect that undermines front-loading.

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 all parameters documented in the schema and no output schema, the description only needs to cover purpose and routing. It covers the domain concepts well but omits sibling differentiation and any behavioral context, leaving it just barely sufficient for a six-parameter data endpoint.

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, including defaults and ranges (lookback default 300 max 500, timeframe default 1h, swing_length default 5). The description adds only the example invocation with symbol and timeframe, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific resource (ICT liquidity levels) and enumerates the exact content: buy-side liquidity above swing highs, sell-side below swing lows, sweep/taken status, relative-equal pools, and nearest untaken targets. It also notes the asset coverage (crypto or stocks). It does not, however, distinguish itself from closely related siblings such as fvg, ohlcv, or atr, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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?

Usage is only implied through the example URL (`/v1/liquidity-levels?symbol=TQQQ&timeframe=1h`), which shows a concrete call pattern. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over fvg or ohlcv, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. Adequate but leaves routing decisions to inference.

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