analyze_fibonacci

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

With no annotations, the description explains the tool performs automatic swing detection, calculates levels, and outputs historical reaction data. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but the behavior is well-described for a read-only analysis tool.

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 with two sentences and a list of related terms. It front-loads the key purpose. However, it could be better structured for 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?

The description covers main functionality but does not explain the return format or detailed output fields (e.g., what 'reaction history' includes). Given the complexity and lack of output schema, more detail would be beneficial.

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 0%. The description does not explain the parameters (pair, type, lookbackDays, historyLookbackDays) except for the mode inferred from 'retracement/extension'. The agent must rely solely on the schema, which lacks descriptions.

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 Fibonacci analysis (retracement/extension) with automatic swing detection and historical reaction data. It explicitly mentions the alternative analyze_mtf_fibonacci for multi-timeframe, distinguishing it from siblings.

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 provides a clear alternative for multi-timeframe analysis (analyze_mtf_fibonacci), implying this tool is for single-frame analysis. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or prerequisites.

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