multi_agent_analysis

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

Describes the outcome (structured debate, final trading decision) and names the three agent types. No annotations present, so description carries full burden. Missing potential costs (e.g., rate limits, latency) but sufficiently transparent for selection.

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?

Four lines total, front-loaded with purpose, then parameter descriptions with examples, then return value. 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?

Given no output schema and param schema lacking descriptions, the tool description explains the return (structured debate, final decision) and parameter examples. Lacks exact return field details, but sufficient for an AI to decide to use this tool.

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?

Adds meaning beyond schema types with concrete examples (e.g., 'BTCUSDT', 'KUCOIN', '15m'). Schema coverage is 0%, so description compensates fully, giving practical values and defaults.

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?

Clearly states the tool runs a multi-agent debate (Technical, Sentiment, Risk) for a symbol. This differentiates it from siblings like 'coin_analysis' or 'market_sentiment' which are single-agent or simpler.

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?

Implied usage through examples (symbol, exchange, timeframe) but no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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