multi_timeframe_scan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses caching behavior (5 min refresh) and implies read-only access, but does not explicitly state nondestructiveness, rate limits, or required permissions. The mention of caching helps but lacks completeness for full transparency.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, the first front-loading core functionality and outputs, the second adding important caching info. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 the simple input (single symbol) and presence of an output schema (which details return fields), the description covers the tool's purpose, outputs, and cache duration adequately. It omits symbol format or error cases, but for a low-complexity tool this is minor.

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 has 0% description coverage, meaning the description must explain parameters. However, it does not mention the 'symbol' parameter at all—no format, sources, or examples. The description implies it is for a financial symbol but fails to add meaningful semantic value beyond the schema's basic string type.

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 performs multi-timeframe technical analysis (15m/1h/4h/1d) and lists specific outputs (overall_signal, confluence_score, etc.). It is distinct from generic tools like tech_analysis but does not explicitly contrast with siblings, so it falls short of a perfect 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool compared to alternatives like tech_analysis or equity_analysis. There is no mention of prerequisites, ideal scenarios, or situations where other tools might be preferred.

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