combined_analysis

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It describes the tool as a composite of multiple data sources, implying a potentially heavy call, but does not specify read-only nature, rate limits, or side effects. Adequate but incomplete for full transparency.

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?

Well-structured with bold title, usage guidance, alternatives, example, and parameter list. The 'POWER TOOL' prefix is slightly excessive but harmless. Overall efficient and front-loaded.

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?

Given no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and parameters well. It lacks output details but is sufficient for tool selection among siblings. A minor gap in return format specification.

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 has 0% description coverage, but description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: symbol format, allowed exchanges, timeframe values, and provides a concrete example. This adds essential meaning beyond the schema.

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 combines technical analysis, news sentiment, and financial news. It distinguishes from siblings: coin_analysis for indicators only and multi_timeframe_analysis for trend alignment, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 states when to use (when TA + sentiment + news desired) and when not (indicators only → coin_analysis, trend alignment → multi_timeframe_analysis), providing clear usage guidance and alternatives.

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