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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does add an ordering trait ('newest first') and clarifies the pattern type ('single-bar'), but it omits whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, rate limits, or other operational constraints. The agent cannot infer the safety profile.

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, well-structured sentence that gets straight to the point, including examples and ordering. It is efficient and front-loaded, though it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 tool has three parameters, no annotations, and a closely related sibling (get_chart_patterns). The description is insufficient because it does not explain how to control recency via limit/timeframe or when to choose this tool over the sibling, despite the presence of an output schema.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about the parameters (symbol, limit, timeframe). It does not even hint that parameters exist, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema for their meaning.

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 returns: recent single-bar candlestick patterns identified by names like HAMMER, DOJI, and ENGULFING. It distinguishes from the sibling get_chart_patterns by emphasizing 'single-bar', though it lacks an explicit action verb like 'get' or 'list'.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The qualifier 'single-bar' indirectly implies a use case, but it does not mention that get_chart_patterns might be for multi-bar patterns or provide any other exclusions or context.

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