get_volume_profile_context_template

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and covers meaningful behavioral traits: the template is audited, limited to a completed exchange-trading day, exposes only prior POC/VAH/VAL as readable plots, and makes no claim about Bid/Ask flow or institutional activity. It doesn't discuss side effects or return format, but the 'get template' nature and follow-up save/add instructions make the expected behavior 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 carry the resource identity, scope limitation, caveat, and a concise step-by-step usage path without fluff. The key discriminator ('audited Pine template' and 'prior POC, VAH and VAL') is front-loaded before the workflow.

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 zero-parameter template getter with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what the template contains, what it deliberately does not contain, how to install it, and how to consume it afterward. No critical missing information is needed for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema covers 100% of them, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description adds no conflicting or additional parameter information.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: it retrieves an audited Pine template for a prior day's volume allocation profile, naming exactly which values (POC, VAH, VAL) are exposed. It also differentiates itself from related tools by explicitly stating it does not claim order-flow or institutional-activity data, so an agent can distinguish it from get_volume_profile_context and other template 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 gives a clear usage workflow: save with save_pine_script, add once with add_pine_to_chart, then use get_volume_profile_context. It implies the tool is the setup step before the context tool and its caveat about order flow tells the agent when not to rely on it, though it does not explicitly name an alternative for Bid/Ask order flow.

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