ofi

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it only reveals the data dependency (consecutive book snapshots). It says nothing about read-only behavior, whether data must pre-exist/backfill, error behavior for missing snapshots, or asset-class handling (that lives only in the schema).

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?

A single front-loaded clause with zero filler; every word (metric, bin, source) earns its place.

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?

Overstated. No output schema and no annotations for a multi-param analytical tool; the description omits return shape (per-bin values), units, and required data availability. Incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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?

Five parameters at 20% schema description coverage (only asset_class is documented). The tool description adds no meaning for symbol, start_ns, end_ns, or interval; 'per time bin' faintly gestures at interval but gives no format or default. It does not compensate for the coverage gap as required.

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?

Names a specific microstructure metric (order-flow imbalance) plus its binning ('per time bin') and its input ('consecutive book snapshots'), which is enough to separate it from siblings like indicators, depth, or liquidity-depth. It stops short of stating the output shape, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is mentioned. An agent cannot tell from this sentence whether to reach for ofi versus indicators, depth, or query_market_data when it wants order-book-derived signal.

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