Classifies whether a price level was tested, broken, rejected, or accepted using supplied OHLCV bars and confirmation rules.
Explain a break, rejection, or test at a custom level from supplied OHLCV bars.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bars | Yes | ||
| as_of | No | ||
| level | Yes | ||
| event_id | No | ||
| direction | Yes | ||
| buffer_pct | No | ||
| level_name | No | custom | |
| acceptance_closes | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about side effects, whether this is purely analytical, what the output contains, or how 'as_of' / 'event_id' affect behavior. Only the existence of an output schema offsets this slightly.
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?
One tight, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, but the brevity here is closer to under-specification than true conciseness given the tool's complexity.
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 an 8-parameter analytical tool with zero annotation and zero schema-description coverage, a single sentence is far too thin. The presence of an output schema excuses the absence of return-value documentation, but nothing compensates for the missing parameter and selection guidance.
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% across 8 parameters, and the description only loosely maps 'level' and 'bars'. Critical parameters such as buffer_pct (default 0.03), acceptance_closes (default 3), direction, as_of, and level_name are given no meaning anywhere, so an agent cannot know how the break/rejection decision is tuned.
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 states a specific verb ('Explain') and a specific resource ('a break, rejection, or test at a custom level from supplied OHLCV bars'), which is a distinct and recognizable analysis task. It implicitly differs from the event-oriented siblings (assess_event, event_readiness) by being level-driven, but that contrast is never made explicit.
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 statement of when to choose this over assess_event or the readiness tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. An agent must infer usage purely from the phrase 'from supplied OHLCV bars.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.