TradingMCP

advanced_candle_pattern

Analyze multi-timeframe candle patterns by setting pattern length, minimum size increase, and exchange parameters to detect significant price formations.

Instructions

Advanced candle pattern analysis using multi-timeframe data.

Args: exchange: Exchange name (BINANCE, KUCOIN, etc.) base_timeframe: Base timeframe for analysis (5m, 15m, 1h, 4h) pattern_length: Number of consecutive periods to analyse (2-4) min_size_increase: Minimum percentage increase in candle size limit: Maximum number of results to return

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "advanced_candle_pattern"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`limit`	No
`exchange`	No	KUCOIN
`base_timeframe`	No	15m
`pattern_length`	No
`min_size_increase`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.1Jul 14, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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 lacks details on side effects, authentication needs, or return behavior. The description merely parameterizes the analysis without disclosing any behavioral traits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description uses a structured docstring format with parameter list, which aids readability. However, it is slightly verbose for the content delivered, and the 'Args' block could be integrated into a more concise narrative.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given five parameters and no output schema, the description should clarify return format and tool behavior. It does not explain what 'analysis' produces (e.g., list of patterns, scores). The minimal parameter descriptions leave gaps in understanding full functionality.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must add meaning. It provides brief explanations for each parameter (e.g., min_size_increase is a percentage), but these are minimal and do not clarify how parameters affect pattern detection. For instance, what constitutes a pattern_length of 2 vs 4?

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it performs 'Advanced candle pattern analysis using multi-timeframe data', specifying the task and resource. However, it could be more precise about what patterns are detected, keeping it from a perfect score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'consecutive_candles_scan' or 'bollinger_scan'. The description only lists parameters without context on appropriate use cases.

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