analyze_mtf_fibonacci

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that it calculates levels across multiple lookback periods in parallel and automatically detects confluence zones, but it does not describe any side effects, output format, data requirements, or whether it is read-only. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 relatively short, but it contains redundancy: the title and first sentence repeat essentially the same information ('Multi-Timeframe Fibonacci / Confluence' and '複数期間フィボナッチ一括分析'). The purpose is front-loaded, but the repetition could be trimmed. It is still concise enough with no excessive filler.

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 tool's complexity (multi-timeframe analysis, confluence detection) and the lack of an output schema, the description should at minimum explain the parameters and what the result will look like. It does neither. The mention of 'confluence zones' gives some context, but the absence of parameter explanation and outcome details makes it incomplete for correct invocation.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description provides no explanation of the 'pair' or 'lookbackDays' parameters. The description does not mention these parameters at all, so an agent has no guidance on how to set them beyond the basic schema defaults and constraints. This is a critical gap that the description fails to compensate for.

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 performs multi-timeframe Fibonacci analysis with confluence zone detection, which is a specific and distinct purpose. It explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool 'analyze_fibonacci' by saying there is no need to call it individually. However, the verb 'analyze' is only implied through the Japanese '分析' but not explicitly stated in the description text.

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 when multi-timeframe Fibonacci or confluence analysis is needed, and it contrasts with calling 'analyze_fibonacci' individually. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other analysis tools, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative recommendations beyond that single mention.

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