detect_candlestick_patterns

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 lists some patterns but says 'and more' without being exhaustive, and does not disclose the return format or whether patterns are detected per candle or as overall signals. Behavioral traits like read-only nature are implied but not explicit.

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: a single sentence stating purpose, a list of periods, and an example. Every part adds value with no wasted words.

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 lacks details on what the tool returns (e.g., pattern names, timestamps, or probabilities). For a tool that detects multiple patterns, this omission is significant. The description only covers input parameters.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by listing valid period values ('1mo, 3mo, 6mo, 1y') and providing an example usage with symbol and period. Though symbol format is not explained, the example clarifies it expects a ticker like 'RELIANCE'.

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 detects candlestick patterns for a stock, listing specific patterns like Doji, Hammer, Engulfing, etc., and provides an example. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on other technical indicators or bulk scanning.

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 through an example and period options but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like scan_patterns_bulk for multiple stocks. No exclusions or prerequisite conditions are mentioned.

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