get_market_structure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose operational behavior. It describes the return content but does not mention authentication requirements, side effects, error conditions, or rate limits. The verb 'Get' suggests read-only, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and uses no filler. It efficiently conveys the tool's output and the optional parameter behavior.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so the description need not detail return formats. It covers the main sections returned and the include parameter. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool, though it would benefit from mentioning any prerequisites.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'include' parameter's purpose and gives examples ('state', 'call_diag'), adding meaning beyond the bare schema. The 'ticker' parameter is self-explanatory and requires no further semantics.

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 function: 'Get the assembled market-structure interpretation for a ticker' and lists the specific outputs (headline signal, regime classification, expected behavior, key levels, supporting metrics). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_ticker_state or get_levels, which focus on individual components.

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 implies when to use the tool (when a comprehensive market-structure interpretation is needed) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tool might be more appropriate. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions.

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