patternfetch_brief

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that output is 'impersonal market data, NOT investment advice,' which is critical for safe use. It also notes token-saving and hallucination avoidance. It does not detail rate limits, required permissions, or data freshness, but these are acceptable gaps for a read-like 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 well-structured with a clear opening statement, a bullet-like list of outputs, and usage sections. It is informative without being verbose. Minor redundancy (e.g., 'token-compact' and 'saves tokens') could be trimmed, but overall it earns its length.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a solid overview of the tool's purpose, return content, and usage boundaries. It lacks details on error handling, pagination, or data latency, but covers essentials well for a tool of moderate complexity.

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 schema has 0% parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It explains 'ticker' and 'timeframe' via example and context ('crypto ticker + timeframe'), but the optional 'limit' parameter is not mentioned at all. Partial coverage; more detail on parameter format or defaults would improve clarity.

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 it retrieves a 'token-compact market-state brief' with specific outputs (candles, patterns, support/resistance, etc.). It identifies the resource (crypto ticker + timeframe) and the action (get). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'patternfetch_analogs' or 'patternfetch_delta', missing a chance to clarify unique positioning.

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 provides 'WHEN' and 'WHEN NOT' guidance, specifying ideal use (saving tokens, avoiding hallucination) and contraindications (order execution, portfolio advice, non-crypto). It also includes a concrete example, making it extremely clear for an agent when to select this tool.

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