analyze_market_signal

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: it returns only the latest-value snapshot, not a time series, and explicitly routes time-series needs elsewhere. This meaningfully sets expectations about scope and freshness for a read-style analysis tool. It does not cover auth or rate limits, but the snapshot limitation is the most consequential behavior and is clearly stated.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first line and the snapshot caveat follows immediately. The trailing tool-name list is useful routing info, though the density of symbols (⚠️・→) and the bilingual mix make it slightly busy. It is efficient overall with no wasted sentences.

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?

Covers the what, why, and when-not well, but with 5 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the unexplained parameters (windows, bucketMs, flowLimit) and lack of return-shape detail leave real gaps. The weighting/composition of the 5-element score is also never described, which a triage tool could usefully state.

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% and the description does not explain any of the 5 parameters (pair, type, windows, bucketMs, flowLimit). Only 'type' gains some clarity from the enum, and defaults hint at intent, but windows/bucketMs/flowLimit remain opaque. The description must compensate at this coverage level and does not.

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?

States a precise verb and resource: it computes a single -100 to +100 composite market signal from 5 named elements (板圧力/CVD/モメンタム/ボラティリティ/SMAトレンド). It explicitly frames itself as a triage/screening entry point and clearly distinguishes itself from prepare_chart_data, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly declares when to use it (分析の起点・スクリーニング – starting point for analysis/screening) and when not to (for time-series chart drawing it directs to prepare_chart_data with indicators specified). It also names concrete specialist alternatives (get_flow_metrics / get_volatility_metrics / analyze_indicators / get_orderbook / detect_patterns) for deeper analysis. Nothing is left to inference.

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