Create a full trade plan for EGX stocks on the Egyptian Exchange. Specify a symbol and optional timeframe to receive detailed analysis and trading strategy.
Generate a full trade plan for a specific EGX stock.
Args: symbol: EGX stock symbol (e.g., "COMI", "TMGH", "FWRY") timeframe: One of 5m, 15m, 1h, 4h, 1D, 1W, 1M (default 1D)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | ||
| timeframe | No | 1D |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety and non-destructive behavior. The description adds minimal extra behavioral context beyond suggesting a generative analysis function, but it does not discuss outputs, complexity, or limitations.
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 compact, front-loaded with the purpose, and split cleanly into a purpose sentence and an Args block. Every line adds value and no filler or redundant phrases are present.
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 simple read-only generator of 2 parameters, the argument information is sufficient to invoke the tool. However, there is no output schema and the description's phrase 'full trade plan' is vague: the agent is not told what the returned plan contains, how it is generated, or what data it relies on. That omission leaves it 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%, so the description must carry the full burden of explaining parameters. It does this well with a complete timeframe list, clear symbol semantics, example symbol values, and a default value. An agent can construct correct calls with no further lookup.
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 'Generate a full trade plan for a specific EGX stock' names a clear verb-action, a specific market, and a deliverable, so an agent can understand the tool's core purpose. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as egx_stock_screener or multi_timeframe_analysis, which keeps it from a 5.
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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and no reference to alternatives. It only states what the tool does and does not mention that it should be used instead of other EGX tools or when a plan is needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.