get_liquidity_zones

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

With no annotations available, the description takes on the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It transparently covers the default filtering of mitigated zones, the scoring components, and a significant caveat about pre-2.15 historical data semantics. It implies a read-only operation through the 'get' verb but does not explicitly assert non-mutating behavior.

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 dense and informative, with each of its four sentences contributing unique details about functionality, parameters, or historical context. While slightly longer than strictly necessary, it contains no filler and is well-structured with a clear progression from output description to caveats.

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?

Without an output schema, the description does a good job of outlining the main return categories: liquidity zones, sweep/mitigation status, and the liquidity score with its components and bias. It could be slightly more explicit about the exact return format or field names, but it gives enough context for an agent to understand what to expect.

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?

The input schema only describes symbol and timeframe, leaving four parameters undocumented (33% coverage). The description compensates for this by thoroughly explaining include_mitigated, but it does not add meaning for lookback, request_id, or idempotency_key, which remain unexplained in both schema and description.

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 identifies the tool's function: retrieving equal highs/lows liquidity zones with sweep/mitigation status and a futures-based liquidity score. It specifies the resource and the nature of the output, though it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like get_order_blocks or get_market_structure.

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 explains the default behavior (active zones only) and the use of include_mitigated for full history, which implicitly guides when to use different modes. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or list exclusions, leaving the usage context partially implied.

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