combined_analysis

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds parameter constraints (no exchange prefix, allowed values) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like return format, rate limits, or error handling. Adequate but not rich beyond annotations.

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 with a bold headline, usage guidance, example, and a clear Args list. Every sentence is informative and no wasted words.

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 effectively covers purpose, usage, and parameters. However, it lacks information about the output format or structure, which could be helpful given no output schema. Nearly complete but with a minor gap.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must fully explain parameters. It does: symbol is 'Bare ticker, no exchange prefix' with examples, exchange lists allowed values, timeframe lists allowed values. Each parameter is clearly explained.

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 it combines TradingView technical analysis, news sentiment, and financial news. It distinguishes from siblings like coin_analysis and multi_timeframe_analysis, and provides an explicit example.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('when you want TA AND sentiment AND news for one symbol in a single call') and when to use alternatives ('For indicators only, coin_analysis is faster; for cross-timeframe trend alignment use multi_timeframe_analysis').

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