get_full_analysis

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behavioral traits: VWAP points are limited to avoid context bloat, version fields are explained (meta/data.algo_version vs data.versions), and the liquidity score semantics are specified (sum of zones in equal_levels, active count matches default zones list). This goes beyond the structured 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?

The description is a compact paragraph of three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by important caveats and data semantics. Every sentence adds value, though it is dense and could be slightly better organized for readability.

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?

The tool aggregates multiple analysis types with no output schema, so the description must supply return-structure context. It touches on version fields and liquidity zones but does not describe the output structure for structure, order block/FVG, VWAP, or session levels. This is a notable gap for a complex aggregate tool.

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 only 33% (symbol and timeframe described). The description does not compensate for the remaining four parameters (lookback, request_id, idempotency_key, include_mitigated). It only indirectly hints at include_mitigated via 'mitigasyonsuz' but provides no parameter-level detail.

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 clearly states the tool's function: a single-call aggregate of all price action analysis including structure, liquidity, order block/FVG, VWAP, and session levels. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual components like get_market_structure, get_liquidity_zones, or get_order_blocks.

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 phrase 'Tek çağrıda' (in a single call) implies this tool is for when you want a comprehensive summary without invoking multiple separate analysis tools, providing clear contextual guidance. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the aggregate-vs-component distinction is evident from sibling tool names.

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