maatsii_fan_guideLinReg fan geometry: what the fans are (EQ centerline + S1-3/R1-3 rails at ±1/2/3σ), rail parity (R≈S), EQ mean-reversion, the <R|S|EQ> label convention, confluence zones (3+ multi-timeframe lines converging), and slope alignment — how to read fan structure like the methodology intends.
| 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, so this is clearly a safe, non-mutating reference tool. The description adds useful context about what content the guide covers, but it doesn't describe behavioral details such as whether the guide is static, how it is returned, or whether it could change under the openWorldHint annotation.
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 that front-loads the core subject ('LinReg fan geometry') and then enumerates the key topics. It is slightly long and packed with clauses, but every part contributes substantive information and nothing is wasted.
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 that this is a parameterless guide with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers the fan elements, statistical rails, label convention, confluence, and slope alignment. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly stating what the tool returns or how to request more detail, but as a reference guide description it covers the essential ground.
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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description correctly focuses on content rather than parameter details, matching the baseline for a parameterless tool.
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 identifies a specific resource — LinReg fan geometry — and states the tool's purpose: teaching how to read fan structure including rails, parity, mean-reversion, label convention, confluence zones, and slope alignment. It clearly differentiates this from sibling tools like maatsii_reading_guide and maatsii_analysis_framework by focusing on fan-specific interpretation.
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 usage by defining the topic and content area ('how to read fan structure'), so an agent can infer this is the right choice when fan interpretation is needed. However, it never explicitly states when to use this over siblings, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative tools.
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.