analyze_mtf_sma

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the analytical output (alignment direction and confluence) and does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, side effects, permissions, or result format. For an analysis tool this is a significant gap, though it is not misleading.

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, front-loads the MTF keyword, and conveys the essence in a single sentence. However, it is somewhat fragmented with the bracketed English tags, and the Japanese is terse. It earns high marks for brevity but could be better organized.

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?

This is a complex multi-parameter analysis tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions. The description does not describe the return value structure, how alignment is represented, data requirements, or any usage constraints. Substantially more context is needed for an agent to call it correctly and interpret results.

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 has 0% coverage, and the description does not compensate. It implies periods refer to SMA periods and timeframes to the timeframes analyzed, but it does not explain the 'pair' parameter or the meaning of the period values. The parameter names themselves are only partially self-explanatory, and the description adds little beyond the schema.

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 comprehensive multi-timeframe SMA analysis and determines alignment direction and confluence. The MTF tag explicitly distinguishes it from single-timeframe siblings like analyze_sma_snapshot, and the phrasing is specific about the resource and output.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as analyze_sma_snapshot or analyze_mtf_fibonacci. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions beyond the implicit multi-timeframe context. Agents are left to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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