indicators_fibonacci-retracement

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idlempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by listing the exact retracement and extension levels returned, which is behavioral detail beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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: two sentences plus a list of levels. It is front-loaded with the purpose and has no fluff. Every sentence 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?

Despite no output schema, the description enumerates the exact retracement and extension levels returned. For a simple calculation tool with well-known inputs, this provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool 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%: all three parameters (swing_high, swing_low, direction) are described in the schema. The description's mention of 'Provide a high price and low price' adds no new semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states it computes Fibonacci retracement and extension levels, specifies exact levels returned, and identifies required inputs (high and low prices). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like indicators_bollinger-bands or indicators_atr by being specific to Fibonacci calculations.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use when computing Fibonacci retracement and extension levels.' It does not provide exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool versus other technical indicators.

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