market_compare_timeframes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does assert 'NO SIDE EFFECTS,' which is useful. But it says nothing about preconditions (e.g., whether a symbol/chart context must already be set), data requirements, or how results are returned, which matters for a zero-annotation 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is compared before the WHEN TO USE directive and the safety note. No filler and every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the comparison returns and any preconditions. It covers purpose, usage trigger, and side-effect status adequately but leaves return shape and required market context unspecified for what is conceptually a rich analytical tool.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description's enumeration of example timeframes echoes the schema's default array and adds only marginal clarity about accepted values.

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 (compare) and enumerates the exact dimensions compared (market regime, trend direction, RSI momentum, volume consensus) plus the scope (multiple timeframes with concrete examples). It is clearly distinguishable from generic data tools. It falls short of a 5 only because the sibling chart_get_multi_timeframe sounds closely related and is never differentiated.

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 explicit 'WHEN TO USE' clause gives a concrete scenario: multi-timeframe top-down analysis to identify timeframe alignment or conflicts. That is clear context for invocation. However, no exclusions or named alternatives are given, so an agent cannot tell when to prefer chart_get_multi_timeframe or market_get_context instead.

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