get_volume_profile_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses fail-closed verification of source, study, symbol, and timeframe, the 'completed prior-session' constraint, and the 'only' limitation. It also warns that results are volume-derived, not direct order-flow evidence.

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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the main result, then verification behavior, then an important caveat. Every clause adds information and no filler is present.

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 no annotations, the description reasonably defines the data scope and fail-closed behavior. However, it does not describe the actual return shape or units of POC/VAH/VAL, and chart_index remains unaddressed, leaving some ambiguity for an agent invoking the tool.

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?

Only 40% of parameters have schema descriptions, so the description must compensate. It does map saved source/study placement/symbol/timeframe to the main inputs, but chart_index remains unexplained and exact format constraints for expected_symbol/expected_timeframe are absent. The description adds some meaning but not complete parameter coverage.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('completed prior-session POC, VAH and VAl only from the exact audited ... Pine template'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_volume_profile_context_template and get_chart_context by narrowing scope and adding what it is not ('not direct large-order, Bid/Ask, or order-flow evidence').

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 gives a clear context for use: reading saved volume profile levels for the prior session with a verified template. It tells the agent what the tool is not for, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when-not-to-use relative to siblings.

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