analyze_ichimoku_snapshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the 'latest values only' limitation, which is genuinely useful. However, it does not describe the return format, pagination, whether calls are idempotent/read-only, or how limit/lookback alter results. For an unannotated tool, this is a moderate gap.

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 tight - the indicator scope is front-loaded, and the routing note is flagged with ⚠️ and placed clearly. It is efficient and each line earns its place, though the Japanese-only text may present a minor accessibility cost for non-Japanese agents.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, this text is the only context source. It covers purpose and the key latest-only constraint but omits parameter semantics, which is significant for a 4-parameter tool with zero schema documentation. Moderately complete but with a real 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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it explains none of the parameters. In an Ichimoku context, 'lookback' is non-obvious (it controls the tenkan/kijun periods) and 'limit' vs 'lookback' interplay is unclear. The description adds zero parameter meaning, failing to compensate for the low schema 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 names the exact indicator (Ichimoku Cloud) and enumerates precisely what it returns: price-vs-cloud relationship, tenkan/kijun cross, and cloud slope. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling snapshot tools (analyze_bb_snapshot, analyze_sma_snapshot, analyze_stoch_snapshot), which each target a different indicator.

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 ⚠️ note explicitly states 'latest values only' and routes time-series chart drawing to prepare_chart_data with the ICHIMOKU indicator argument. This is a clear when-not-to-use with a named alternative. It doesn't state positive conditions for choosing this over the other analyze_*_snapshot siblings, but the snapshot-vs-series distinction is well handled.

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