get_market_structure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds one behavioral detail about the 'meta.algo_version' field, but it does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, any side effects, permission requirements, or performance implications. This is a significant gap for a non-annotated tool.

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 compact, using two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence lists the core components, and the second adds a useful output metadata detail. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

Given the complexity of market structure analysis and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It lists high-level components but does not explain how they are represented (e.g., data types, timestamps, prices), how swings are detected, or how to interpret BOS/CHoCH events. Users would need additional context to use the tool effectively.

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 description provides no information about the input parameters. It mentions 'meta.algo_version' in the output, not any parameter semantics. Since schema description coverage is only 40%, the description fails to clarify parameters like 'lookback', 'request_id', or 'idempotency_key'.

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 output: swing highs/lows, BOS/CHoCH, trend, and swing classifications (HH/LH/HL/LL). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_candles or get_order_blocks, though it lacks an explicit verb in the description (the verb is implied by the tool name).

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_full_analysis or get_order_blocks. The description only states what the tool returns, not in which situations it should be preferred.

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