fxa_level_touches

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the algorithm: finds touches, de-duplicates cluster, and measures reaction. This goes beyond a simple 'tests levels' and provides meaningful behavioral detail, though it omits output format specifics.

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 concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, the second adds process detail, and the third uses a useful analogy. No unnecessary words.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the concept well but lacks explicit return-value specification. 'Measures the reaction' is vague; the agent doesn't know what numeric output to expect. Time range parameters (from/to) are not addressed, leaving some completeness gaps.

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 context for key parameters: 'de-duplicates clustered touches' explains separationBars, and 'how close counts' relates to tolerancePips. It doesn't explain to/from but the schema already has no descriptions for those, so the description partially compensates.

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: 'Test whether a price level actually held' with a specific verb and resource. It also explains the process (finds touches, de-duplicates, measures reaction), making it distinct from siblings like candle retrieval or session scanning.

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?

Usage is implied ('when you want to test a price level') but no explicit alternatives or when-not scenarios are mentioned. The description doesn't contrast with sibling tools, so the agent must infer applicability from the purpose.

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