analyze_support_resistance

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 mentions analysis of contact frequency, strength, and breakdown history, which gives some behavioral insight. However, it does not disclose any side effects, dependencies, or limitations (e.g., data source, computational cost).

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 a single sentence that is concise but lacks structure. It does not use bullet points or separate sections to convey key information about parameters or usage, making it less efficient for an agent 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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is too sparse. It covers only the high-level purpose, leaving out parameter meanings, output details, and any context for proper usage. The tool is not sufficiently documented for an agent to use independently.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (pair, topN, tolerance, lookbackDays). The agent has no semantic information about what these parameters do, which is critical for correct invocation.

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 it detects support/resistance/key levels and analyzes contact frequency, strength, and breakdown history. This specific verb-resource pair distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_fibonacci or analyze_volume_profile.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for selection among many technical analysis tools.

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