Real vs legal trading

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still earns credit by adding meaning beyond them: the sign convention for net_real_volume, the newest-day-first ordering, and units (shares, Rial) — all things the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and segmentation, then the key interpretive rule, then ordering and units. Nothing is padding and every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the required work: it explains the headline field's interpretation, ordering, and units. It stops short of describing the full result shape (e.g. the buyer/seller count fields it advertises), which is a minor gap for a read-only tool whose annotations are already clear.

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 100%, with both `days` (1-10, one upstream call per day) and `symbol` (ticker, exact name, or ins_code) fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('buy and sell'), the exact measures (volume, value, buyer/seller counts) and the distinguishing segmentation (real vs legal traders, per day). No sibling tool competes with that scope, so an agent can tell instantly this is not ts_get_quote or ts_price_history.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope statement rather than stated: an agent can infer this is for retail-vs-institutional flow analysis, but there is no explicit 'use this when' condition, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as ts_price_history for raw price/volume.

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