get_flow_metrics

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses important behavioral details: internal sorting by timestampMs ascending, deduplication logic using timestampMs:price:amount:side when merging data sources, and the fact that hours parameter can fetch across multiple days. This adds substantial value beyond the schema.

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 concise with two clear sections: purpose/usage and processing contract. It front-loads the main function and uses efficient language, though the Japanese '加工契約' section is somewhat technical but necessary.

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 clarify return structure. It mentions view parameter options (summary, compact, buckets, full) but does not explain what each returns. The tool has 8 optional parameters with defaults, but no description of default behavior beyond hours/limit priority.

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 63%, and the description adds meaning for key parameters: explains that hours is prioritized over limit, specifies that limit refers to execution count not bucket count, and clarifies that hours automatically spans multiple days. This helps agents understand parameter interplay.

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 the tool's purpose: analyzing fund flow metrics (flow/CVD/aggressor ratio/buy-sell pressure) from execution data. It specifies detection of CVD, aggressor ratio, and spikes, and distinguishes it from sibling analysis tools by focusing on flow-specific metrics.

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 recommends using 'hours' over 'limit' for time range specification, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no 'when-not-to-use' or mention of prerequisites, limiting clarity on appropriate usage.

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