market_detect_zones

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does at least assert 'NO SIDE EFFECTS', establishing it as a read-only analysis. It omits other behavioral traits: which symbol/timeframe/bars it operates on, computational cost, and how zones are ranked or returned.

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?

Two sentences, no filler: the capability and its result attributes come first, followed by the usage trigger. Every clause earns its place.

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, so the description must describe returns; it only hints at them (touch counts, test recency) without a return shape. It also omits the chart-context dependency (symbol/timeframe/visible range) that an agent would need to call it correctly.

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% with defaults documented on all three parameters (minTouches, candleCount, tolerancePct), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional meaning about how these knobs affect detection results, 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 and resource: detecting horizontal support/resistance zones and consolidation clusters, plus output attributes (touch counts, test recency). However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling market_detect_structure, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.

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 concrete scenarios (take-profit, stop-loss, reaction areas), which is stronger than most definitions. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or pointing to market_detect_structure / market_get_context as alternatives for related analysis.

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