analyze_candle_patterns

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It mentions detection and providing context/statistics, but fails to mention that the tool is read-only, fixed to daily timeframe (as per schema), or any side effects. No information about data source, processing time, or potential cost.

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 two sentences and relatively concise, but the first sentence contains a bracket-enclosed list that could be streamlined. It front-loads the key purpose but includes redundant Japanese/English translations. Slightly less concise than ideal, but still efficient.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the return format (context and past statistics), constraints (timeframe is fixed to 1day), or how to interpret results. For a tool with this complexity, the description fails to provide minimal 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?

Schema description coverage is only 30%, so the description must compensate. However, it only lists a few pattern names (doji, engulfing, hammer, harami) without explaining parameters like 'date', 'as_of', 'pair', 'timeframe', 'window_days', etc. No parameter semantics are clarified 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?

The description clearly states it detects candlestick patterns (doji, engulfing, hammer, harami) and provides context and past statistics. The verb 'detect' and resource 'candle patterns' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'detect_patterns' or other analyze_* tools that focus on different indicators.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lists patterns but does not state prerequisites, limitations, or when to choose this over similar tools like 'detect_patterns' or 'analyze_indicators'. The usage context is only implicitly derived from the tool name.

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