analyze_volume_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that calculations are based on recent trades (hours/limit) and lists computed metrics. However, it does not mention data source, recalc behavior, or any side effects, leaving some gaps.

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?

The description is short and front-loaded with core functionality in the first sentence. It uses concise phrasing, though the mix of Japanese and brackets slightly reduces clarity. No redundant 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?

Given no output schema, the description should explain return values. It hints at outputs (VWAP bands, volume distribution) but does not specify structure or format. With many sibling tools, more context on what results look like would help agent decide.

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 67%. The description explains the 'hours' parameter (default 4h, max 24h) but does not detail other parameters like 'bins', 'valueAreaPct', 'tz', or 'pair'. It adds value by naming the analysis types but could better compensate for low 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?

The description clearly states it analyzes volume profile, VWAP, POC, and value area. It lists specific outputs (VWAP bands, volume per price, trade size distribution) and mentions the key parameter 'hours'. While it distinguishes from sibling tools by topic, it does not explicitly contrast with similar 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for volume profile analysis but does not provide context for when other tools like 'analyze_indicators' or 'get_volatility_metrics' would be more appropriate.

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