detect_chart_patterns

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden and discloses almost nothing beyond the pattern names. It does not say whether detection runs over historical OHLCV, whether results include confidence or price targets, how many patterns are returned, or how much data the timeframe requires.

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?

A single compact sentence that leads with the verb and backs it with concrete pattern examples. Nothing is wasted, though the sentence does no more than the minimum.

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?

There is no output schema and the description explains nothing about the return value, which for a pattern detector is the critical unknown (detected pattern list, direction, confidence, range). With no annotations either, an agent cannot predict the response shape.

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 100% and both parameters (symbol, timeframe with accepted values and default) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning such as how timeframe affects pattern reliability, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (detect) and resource (chart patterns) and enumerates examples (head & shoulders, triangles, double tops/bottoms), so an agent knows exactly what it produces. It does not distinguish itself from analytical siblings such as get_technical_indicators, get_support_resistance, or multi_timeframe_analysis.

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 statement of when to use this rather than the many overlapping technical-analysis siblings, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The only hint of usage is the implicit 'this is technical analysis' framing.

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