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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that similarity is 'research evidence, not a directional probability' and mentions an 'explicit signal-integrity gate,' which is helpful. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, or the token-based payment mechanism beyond the parameter description.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that lists all key elements without redundancy. It is slightly long but well-organized and easy to parse, with no unnecessary fluff.

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?

It thoroughly lists the content of the response (e.g., presets, analogues, magnitude bands) but does not specify the output structure or format. Given the absence of an output schema, the description could be more explicit about the response shape, though referencing the /candles chart provides some context.

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 schema provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all eight parameters, including enums and defaults. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so it stays at the baseline for high schema 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 names a specific resource (candle-pattern context), a specific action (return), and lists the exact components (OHLC, presets, analogues, magnitudes, ledger, freshness, gate). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like find_market_analogs or get_pattern_metrics by framing it as the chart's context.

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 states what it returns but does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives. It mentions it mirrors the /candles chart, implying use when chart context is needed, but lacks direct guidance on when this tool is preferable over similar ones like find_market_analogs.

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