patternfetch_analogs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses the behavioral nature: it returns historical distribution data, explicitly states it is not a prediction or advice, and notes past performance does not guarantee future results. This is transparent for a read-only analytical tool.

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: three sentences, no redundant text. The key action and output are front-loaded, and every sentence contributes essential information (purpose, usage guidelines, limitations).

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?

The description adequately explains the return value (FULL distribution with specific metrics) but fails to explain all input parameters, especially ticker and timeframe. Given that there is no output schema and schema coverage is 0%, the description should provide more parameter context to be complete.

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 0%, and the description only indirectly hints at 'window' and 'horizon' without explaining their meaning or format. The required parameters 'ticker' and 'timeframe' are not mentioned at all, leaving their semantics entirely to the schema which lacks 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 clearly states the tool finds historical windows resembling current price action and returns a distribution of forward outcomes. It uses specific verbs and lists exact return fields (win-rate, median, min, max, n), and distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly stating it is not a prediction or backtest.

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 explicitly states when to use ('agent wants historical context for a setup') and what not to use ('NOT a prediction, NOT a backtest'). It provides clear context for appropriate usage, though it does not directly reference sibling tools as alternatives.

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