get_support_resistance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure and does not meet it. It does not say how levels are computed, whether it is a read-only analysis, how many levels are returned, or what happens with an unsupported timeframe. Only the word 'find' weakly implies a read operation.

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 short sentence with no wasted words, and the core capability is front-loaded. Brevity is the issue only in that too little is said, not in verbosity.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what the response contains, such as whether levels are price points with strength scores, and how timeframe affects results. For example, it should clarify whether daily is the default, while the schema covers the enum values. As written, it leaves the agent unable to predict the output.

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 description coverage is 100%: both symbol and timeframe are documented, including the timeframe enum values and the default of daily. The description adds no further meaning about parameters, so the schema baseline of 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource: finding support and resistance levels. That is clear enough that an agent knows the general capability. However, it offers no differentiation from nearby siblings such as get_technical_indicators, detect_chart_patterns, 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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no mention of prerequisites such as the need for historical price data. The agent must infer from the name alone whether to call this tool or get_technical_indicators.

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