egx_fibonacci_retracement

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, signaling a safe read operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond parameter documentation, such as rate limits or output format.

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 concise with a clear header and bullet-like parameter list. It front-loads the purpose and quickly documents arguments, though it could be more structured with explicit parameter tables.

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?

With three parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description adequately documents inputs but fails to describe output (e.g., Fibonacci levels) or the analysis algorithm. Among many technical sibling tools, this feels incomplete.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description provides examples for symbol ('COMI', 'TMGH', 'FWRY') and enumerates allowed values for lookback and timeframe. This compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 states 'Fibonacci retracement analysis for EGX stocks,' which clearly defines the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like egx_market_overview or other technical analysis tools.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bollinger_scan or volume_breakout_scanner. The description only lists parameters without explaining the context for choosing this tool.

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