get_order_blocks

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and excels: it discloses merging of nearby OBs, that breakers carry mitigated=true, and the important caveat that immutable history may contain records with old semantics (mitigated=false). It also clarifies that not all regions in history are active, which is critical for correct interpretation.

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, then details default behavior, merging, and a caveat. It is slightly long but each sentence contributes value. The '(2.15)' is cryptic but does not derail overall structure. Efficient for the complexity involved.

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 no output schema and low schema coverage, the description covers the key domain semantics: types, default behavior, merging, and historical quirks. It lacks details on lookback limits and request_id semantics, but for a data retrieval tool, it is reasonably complete for the primary use case.

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 only 33% (symbol and timeframe). The description adds significant meaning for include_mitigated, explaining its effect on history vs active zones, but it does not clarify lookback, request_id, or idempotency_key. It partially compensates for the low schema coverage but not fully.

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 resource: order blocks (order_block|breaker|mitigation_block) and FVGs after BOS/CHoCH. It distinguishes from siblings like get_market_structure and get_liquidity_zones by specifying the unique output type. The scope (active zones vs full history) is also included, making the tool's purpose very specific.

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 parameter usage (default active zones vs include_mitigated=true for full history) but does not explicitly mention when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_market_structure or get_liquidity_zones. It provides clear context for the include_mitigated parameter but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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