analyze_support_resistance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'detects' and 'analyzes' but does not state whether it is read-only, what the output format is, whether it has any side effects, or if it requires specific data. The description is too thin to convey the behavioral profile beyond the basic action.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key topic in brackets. It is appropriately sized and efficient, containing no fluff. However, it is so short that it sacrifices necessary detail, so it does not earn a 5, but it is structurally sound and prioritizing the core message.

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 parameters and the absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the meaning of the four parameters, the expected output structure, or how to interpret the results. An agent calling this tool would likely be uncertain about what to pass and what to expect back, making the description insufficient for reliable 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema itself provides no explanations for the parameters (pair, topN, tolerance, lookbackDays). The description does not compensate by explaining any of these parameters or how they influence the analysis. An agent would have no idea what 'tolerance' or 'topN' mean from the description, making this a critical gap.

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's purpose: it automatically detects support/resistance levels and analyzes contact count, strength, and breakdown history. This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes the tool from general analysis tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like analyze_fibonacci or analyze_volume_profile, which also deal with price levels, so a full 5 is not warranted.

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. It does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or conditions that would select this tool over similar analysis tools. There is no explicit 'use this when...' or comparison to siblings, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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