get_available_timeframes_for_collection

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers: it states read-only behavior, absence of confirm gating, no dedicated exception class, direct passthrough of OctoBot's sorted JSON array, and the exact output shape. This goes well beyond a minimal description and gives the agent clear expectations for side effects and failure modes.

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 description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides endpoint mapping, output format, and behavioral notes. The paragraph explaining why there is no sibling symbols tool is somewhat tangential to actually invoking this tool, but it is still useful for tool-set navigation. It is longer than strictly necessary but every section contributes context.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential facts: endpoint, request parameter, output structure with an example, read-only nature, exception behavior, and relationship to existing tools. There are no obvious gaps that would prevent an agent from making a correct call.

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%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented `exchange` parameter. It only shows `exchange` appearing in the endpoint query string and says 'for one exchange,' but it does not explain valid exchange names, identifier vs. display name, or any expected format. Some meaning is added beyond the bare schema, but it is not enough for reliable parameter construction.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the time frames OctoBot's data collector supports for one exchange.' It also maps to a concrete endpoint, which removes ambiguity. The purpose is further distinguished from sibling tools by explaining why a similar symbols-listing tool does not exist, so the agent can place this tool in the overall collection.

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?

The description gives clear operational context: it is read-only, not confirm-gated, and returns time frames for one exchange. It does not explicitly state 'use this before start_data_collection' or list alternative tools for the same purpose, but it does explain why no sibling `get_available_symbols_for_collection` exists and references `get_all_symbols` as a conventional analog. This is sufficient context though not a full when-to-use/when-not-to-use guide.

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