analyze_currency_strength

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It details the composite score methodology and that it covers all JPY pairs. However, it does not describe output format, update frequency, rate limits, or any side effects. For an analysis tool, knowing the return structure is critical.

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 concise, front-loading keywords and using a clear structure. It avoids unnecessary text. The mix of Japanese and English may slightly reduce clarity but does not waste space.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (ranked list, scores, etc.). It only says 'ranking/screening' without detailing output format. For a screening tool with two non-required params, this is a notable gap.

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 100%, with both parameters (topN, type) documented. The description reinforces that topN selects from volume-sorted pairs and type determines RSI/SMA timeframe, but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. According to the calibration, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the tool analyzes currency strength, ranking, and screening using a composite score for all JPY pairs. It includes relevant keywords and indicates its use for discovering noteworthy instruments. While it distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on individual indicators, it does not explicitly contrast them.

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 implies usage for screening and discovering strong/weak currencies via composite scoring. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use analyze_indicators or analyze_sma_snapshot), and no when-not-to-use information is provided.

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