multi_timeframe_analysis

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and adequately discloses behavioral traits: it works on multiple timeframes (Weekly to 15m), requires a symbol and exchange, and includes symbol formatting rules. While it does not mention side effects or rate limits, for a non-destructive analysis tool the transparency is high.

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 well-structured: a concise first sentence defining purpose, followed by usage guidance, an example, and detailed parameter explanations. Every sentence adds unique value, and the formatting with bullet points for examples enhances readability.

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 the tool has 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is quite complete: it covers symbol formatting for multiple exchanges, provides a working example, and clarifies scope. It does not describe the output, but that is reasonable given no output schema; however, a brief note on return format would elevate completeness.

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 input schema has only titles and default value, providing no descriptions. The description extensively compensates with detailed explanations for both parameters: symbol (bare ticker, no exchange prefix, with examples across crypto and stocks) and exchange (lists valid values). This far exceeds the schema's minimal information.

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 it performs multi-timeframe alignment analysis for cross-timeframe trend alignment on one symbol. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like coin_analysis (single-timeframe) and combined_analysis (TA+sentiment+news), making the purpose specific and unique.

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 (cross-timeframe trend alignment on ONE symbol) and when not to (use coin_analysis for single-timeframe, combined_analysis for TA+sentiment+news). Provides a clear example and alternative tool names, giving strong usage guidance.

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