maatsii_reading_guideHow to read a Maatsii chart correctly: the price is on the RIGHT AXIS; the black last-price tag = header Close; fan labels are (R/S/EQ); no VRVP/volume-profile or VWAP is printed on the template (header Vol = bar volume; mid = labelled EQ). No OCR, no pixel math, no 'black box' hunting.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, but the description still adds significant behavioral context: it specifies that no VRVP, VWAP, or volume-profile data is printed on the template, and that the mid label is 'EQ'. This disclosure of what the tool does NOT provide goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent set expectations.
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 well-structured: it leads with the core purpose, then lists precise facts, and ends with what to avoid. Each sentence adds distinct information without repetition or filler. It is appropriately sized for a zero-param tool.
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 description is complete for a zero-param tool: it explains the chart-format conventions and the boundaries of what the tool addresses. The lack of an output schema is mitigated because the tool is essentially a reference/guideline rather than a data-producing function. Nothing necessary for calling it correctly is missing.
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, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description doesn't need to add parameter-specific semantics, and it doesn't attempt to. The baseline of 4 for zero-param tools applies here; no further information is needed.
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 what the tool does: it teaches how to read a Maatsii chart, with specific, unambiguous facts (price on the right axis, black last-price tag equals header Close, fan labels are <TF> <type>). It distinguishes itself from siblings by listing what is NOT done (no OCR, no pixel math, no black-box hunting), making the purpose concrete and grounded.
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 this guide is applicable (when reading a chart) and implicitly discourages using OCR/pixel methods as substitutes. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over siblings like maatsii_fan_guide or maatsii_chart_map, nor does it state any conditions that should NOT trigger this tool. The usage context is implied but not made explicit.
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.