get_futures_flow_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explicitly states that CFTC data is delayed, the result is a proxy rather than realtime order flow, and 'it never changes the chart,' which addresses the main side-effect concern. It does not describe return shape, COT freshness details, or any non-chart side effects, so it stops short of full transparency.

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?

Two sentences contain no filler: the first packs the exact resource and the four data components, and the second adds the decisive caveats about being a proxy and never changing the chart. Every part contributes to selection or safe invocation.

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?

For a 16-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives a strong conceptual overview but leaves the return contract unstated — an agent does not know what the combined context looks like, such as normalized observations, OI quadrants, or roll flags. The rich parameter schema mitigates input ambiguity, but output semantics and sibling routing remain gaps.

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 94%, so the schema already documents most parameters and their defaults, constraints, and provider-specific behavior. The description adds high-level conceptual framing for groups of parameters — trailing volume z-scores, OI quadrant analysis, roll anomaly detection — but no parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action and resource: it combines one exact TradingView CME/COMEX/CBOT/NYMEX continuous-futures daily chart with delayed CFTC COT, volume z-scores, daily OI four-quadrant analysis, and roll-anomaly detection. It also labels itself a 'market-participation proxy, not realtime institutional order flow,' which helps an agent distinguish it from execution/order-flow and other context siblings. The composition is distinctive enough that the tool is not easily confused with watchlist, journal, or price-action tools.

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 communicates a clear context of use — futures market-participation context combining COT, OI, and volume — and gives one exclusion: it is not realtime institutional order flow. However, it never explicitly says 'use when X' or names an alternative sibling for other cases, so routing among the many related context tools is left to inference.

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