Get Volume Profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description correctly adds context about what data is returned (price buckets, PoC, Value Area). It does not disclose any rate limits or constraints, but the read-only nature is clear.

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 sentences, each essential. The first sentence states the core function, the second lists key outputs, and the third gives a use case. No redundant or unnecessary words.

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?

Despite not showing the output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and returns. For a read-only data retrieval tool with full parameter documentation, this is complete.

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 100%, so parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description reinforces the bucketSize parameter by mentioning 'Price bucket width in dollars' but does not add significant new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 explicitly states the verb (Get), resource (volume distribution across price levels), and scope (single trading day). It mentions key computed values (Point of Control, Value Area), which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like get_historical_prices or get_intraday_bars that provide raw price data.

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 provides clear usage context ('Use for identifying support/resistance and high-volume price nodes'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for different timeframes or aggregation levels.

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