pro_sync

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the data source (Binance public archive, so no credentials implied), the write target (one local memory-mapped dataset named "<SYMBOL>-aggTrades"), and idempotent behavior for already-present days. It omits operational traits such as rate limits, handling of future or invalid date ranges, and whether the call is long-running.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and range semantics, and the incremental-download and return-value facts each earn their place. Minor waste in the '(Deptho Pro)' branding prefix and a long first sentence that packs source, range, and target together.

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 three-required-parameter ingestion tool with no output schema, the description covers source, destination, idempotency, and the return value (dataset name and size). What remains missing is modest: symbol formatting and failure/latency behavior for large date ranges.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It adds real meaning for start/end (YYYY-MM-DD format, inclusive range) and implies symbol feeds the dataset name, but never states the symbol convention (e.g. BTCUSDT vs BTC-USDT) or the units the archive uses for USD-M contracts.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: download Binance USD-M daily trade files from the public archive and append them into a local memory-mapped dataset. The scope (one symbol, one dataset) is concrete enough that an agent can distinguish it from replay_orders, pro_replay, pro_status and tearsheet without inspecting schemas.

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: the incremental note ('Days already on disk aren't downloaded again') signals this is the data-acquisition step that precedes replay/tearsheet work. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no named alternative such as pro_status for checking what is already local.

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