maatsii_analysis_frameworkThe 11-section multi-timeframe (MTF) LinReg analysis structure — the per-group timeframe hierarchy (use the intervals you actually fetched), alignment/divergence scoring, setup verification via playbook text, optional intermarket section, and the Master Trade List + bull/base/bear scenario tree — to produce a full TA with actionable levels.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds process-level context such as using actually fetched intervals, setup verification via playbook text, and an optional intermarket section. This is useful but does not fully disclose output behavior or operational details.
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, dense sentence with multiple dash-separated clauses. It packs in a lot of information but is not particularly concise or front-loaded in a scannable way. The core idea is clear, but the structure could be improved.
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 input parameters and no output schema, the description explains the framework's components and end goal. However, it does not clarify how the tool is meant to be invoked or what kind of response/result is expected, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.
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 input schema has no parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description does not need to compensate for missing schema details, and the baseline for 0 params is 4.
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 identifies the tool as an 11-section MTF LinReg analysis structure and states its purpose: to produce a full TA with actionable levels. It is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like chart_map or get_chart, though it does not explicitly name a sibling.
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 the tool is for constructing a full technical analysis, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. There are no references to sibling tools or conditions that would trigger its use, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: data fetching (get_chart, get_group), setup management (list, get, match), and reference guides (framework, chart_map, fan_guide, reading_guide, get_concept). Although several guides overlap in explaining concepts, their scopes are well-differentiated by descriptions and use cases.
All tools share the consistent `maatsii_` prefix and use lowercase snake_case, but the pattern mixes verb-first names (get_chart, list_setups, match_setup) with noun-style names (analysis_framework, chart_map, fan_guide). Minor inconsistency, yet still readable and predictable.
10 tools is squarely within the ideal range for a specialized analysis server. Each tool covers a distinct need without redundancy, and the count feels balanced for both data access and educational support.
The tool surface fully supports the workflow: fetching individual charts and groups, accessing all setups, matching candidates against visual data, and providing necessary methodology guides. No obvious missing operations or dead ends within the intended read/analysis scope.