advanced_candle_pattern

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read nature is clear. The description adds that it uses multi-timeframe data, which is some additional context, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits, data freshness, or whether it's historical or real-time.

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 structured as a clear purpose sentence followed by a compact parameter list. Each line adds specific value. It is concise without being vague, and the first sentence effectively front-loads the purpose.

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 output schema, the description does not explain return values, which is a gap. It also lacks context on what makes the analysis 'advanced' or how it compares to simpler pattern scanners. The annotations and schema provide basic structure, but the description could be more comprehensive.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description carries the full burden and provides meaningful explanations for each parameter: exchange name, base timeframe examples (5m, 15m, 1h, 4h), pattern length range (2-4), minimum size increase (percentage), and limit. This compensates well for missing schema descriptions, though it could be more precise (e.g., valid exchange enum values).

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 'Advanced candle pattern analysis using multi-timeframe data', specifying the verb (analysis) and resource (candle patterns). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like consecutive_candles_scan or volume_breakout_scanner, which also analyze patterns, reducing distinctiveness.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The description only lists parameters, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name and siblings.

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