analyze_fibonacci

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses automatic swing detection, calculation of levels, and inclusion of historical reaction performance (rebound rate, return). However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only (likely for an analysis tool), nor does it mention any limitations or side effects beyond the output details. The behavior is partially transparent but not fully explicit.

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 that front-load the core purpose and then provide the sibling alternative. Every sentence adds value; there is no redundant or filler content. The structure is effective 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?

The tool has 5 parameters and no output schema. The description covers the main output (levels with historical performance) but does not clarify the difference between the two lookback parameters (lookbackDays vs historyLookbackDays) or the default behavior for mode/type. It is adequate for a basic understanding but leaves important contextual details unexplained, especially for a tool with multiple parameters and no output schema.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions swing high-low and retracement/extension, which vaguely relates to mode, but does not define the meaning of individual parameters like lookbackDays vs historyLookbackDays, or type. The description provides no explicit parameter-level semantics, leaving the agent to infer from the schema alone, which is insufficient given the lack of coverage.

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 the tool's purpose: Fibonacci analysis (retracement/extension) with automatic swing detection and level calculation, including historical reaction performance. It names the specific resource (Fibonacci levels) and the action (analyze), distinguishing it from the multi-timeframe sibling via direct mention.

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 explicitly identifies the alternative for multi-timeframe analysis (analyze_mtf_fibonacci) and implies this tool is for single-timeframe. While it does not enumerate all possible alternatives or conditions, the single-timeframe vs multi-timeframe distinction is clear and sufficient for the main use case.

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