analyze_candle_patterns

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention that it detects 1-3 bar patterns and provides context and past statistics, which hints at the output style. However, it does not disclose any limitations, whether it is read-only, data source behavior, or potential error conditions. The description is minimal and leaves most behavioral aspects unknown.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the key pattern names and the core behavior. It is efficient with no filler. However, it is so brief that it omits critical usage details, but for what it covers, it is well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

This is a 10-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations. The description is one sentence and does not address how parameters interact, what the output looks like, or any prerequisites. An agent has almost no context to call this tool correctly. The completeness is severely inadequate given the complexity.

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%, meaning most parameters (window_days, focus_last_n, history_horizons, history_lookback_days, allow_partial_patterns, etc.) lack descriptions. The tool description adds no clarifications for these undocumented parameters. Even for the covered ones (date, as_of, patterns), the description adds no extra nuance beyond the schema. It fails to compensate for the low coverage, leaving the agent to guess parameter semantics.

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) on 1-3 bars, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from technical indicator tools (analyze_indicators, etc.), though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'detect_patterns' which may or may not overlap. A clear but not fully differentiated purpose.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling analysis tools. The description implies its use for candle pattern detection but does not state conditions, exclusions, or alternatives (e.g., when to use detect_patterns vs analyze_candle_patterns). The agent must infer usage from the title alone.

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