get_multi_timeframe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state side effects (e.g., read-only nature), authentication requirements, rate limits, or response characteristics. Although 'get_' suggests a read operation, this is not explicit and no additional behavioral context is given.

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-front-loaded sentence. Every word adds meaning: the action, timeframes, and computed output. There is no redundant or vague phrasing.

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?

For a tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description adequately defines the scope: specific timeframes and the target score. It does not explain what 'Confluence Score' means, but the existence of an output schema likely covers return details. The description is complete enough to understand the tool's role.

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 already provides 100% coverage with a description for the single 'symbol' parameter ('Stock ticker (e.g. AAPL, KBANK)'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond reinforcing that the symbol is the subject of analysis. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the 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 clearly states the tool's function: performing multi-timeframe analysis across specific timeframes (D, H1, M15) and computing a Confluence Score. The verb 'performs' plus the resource 'symbol' and output 'Confluence Score' distinguish it from sibling analysis tools like get_market_analysis or get_technical_indicators.

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 context: when a multi-timeframe confluence score is needed for a symbol. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the timeframes and score objective provide clear context for when to select this tool over other analysis options.

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