find_ta_signals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are 'ranked by confidence' but omits important behavioral details such as whether it is read-only, what 'confidence' means, how many pairs are scanned, or what the return structure looks like. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 consists of two short sentences that directly state the action and output. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff. Each sentence earns its place. It is appropriately concise, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.

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 tool is complex with 7 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is too sparse to guide an agent effectively: it does not explain parameter meanings, the definition of 'confidence', the output format, or the default behavior when no parameters are provided. Significant details are missing.

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 7 parameters with 0% description coverage, meaning no property descriptions. The tool description does not mention any parameter (limit, maxPairs, minVolume, timeframe, quoteAsset, signalType, minConfidence) and therefore adds no semantics beyond the raw schema. The agent cannot infer what each parameter controls.

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 scans trading pairs for technical analysis signals and returns buy/sell opportunities ranked by confidence. The verb 'scan' and resource 'trading pairs' effectively distinguish it from single-symbol analysis tools like get_indicator or get_ohlcv.

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 implies usage: when you want a broad market scan for TA opportunities. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as when analyzing a specific symbol (analyze_symbol_ta) or scanning spreads (scan_spreads). The context is clear but no exclusions are stated.

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