analyze_currency_strength

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains the computation method (composite score based on several indicators), which is useful, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the output format is (e.g., a ranked list with scores), or any potential side effects. The explanation of underlying metrics adds some transparency, but significant behavioral details remain unspecified.

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, dense sentence that packs purpose, methodology, and use case without any redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core concept and avoids unnecessary details, making it highly efficient for an agent scanning tool descriptions.

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's moderate complexity (two optional parameters, no output schema), the description explains what it does and how, but it does not mention what the return value looks like, any prerequisites (e.g., whether candle data must be fetched first), or limitations. This is adequate for basic selection but leaves gaps for an agent needing to interpret results.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (topN and type) have descriptions in the schema. The tool description contributes no additional parameter context beyond what the schema already provides, which is acceptable per calibration. The description's mention of 'all JPY pairs' does not clarify parameter semantics further.

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 analyzes currency strength ranking for all JPY pairs, using a composite score of rate of change, RSI, SMA divergence, and volume. It distinguishes itself from sibling indicator tools by focusing on relative strength screening, making its 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?

The description implicitly conveys usage for screening and discovering notable instruments (注目銘柄の発見・スクリーニングに), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_market_signal or analyze_indicators. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided, though the context is clear enough for an agent to infer typical use.

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