detect_macd_cross

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the two modes and the difference between summary and detailed views, but it does not disclose return format details, side effects (if any), rate limits, or safe-read status. It also does not define 'forming' or 'past statistics' clearly. Some transparency is present, but significant gaps remain.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The mode distinction is clearly stated, and the screen parameter list is presented as a clean bullet list. While bilingual, it is not overly verbose and each sentence contributes to understanding. Minor redundancy with the English/Japanese repetition, but overall well structured.

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?

The tool is complex (11 parameters, nested screen object, no output schema). The description gives an overview of modes and screen options, but lacks details on what the tool returns (beyond text content), how forming detection works, what 'past statistics' include, and examples of usage. Given the complexity and lack of output schema, more context is needed for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret results. It is adequate but not complete.

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 64%, so the description is expected to add meaning for the remaining parameters. It does explain the screen object's key fields (crossType, minHistogramDelta, maxBarsAgo, minReturnPct, maxReturnPct, sortBy, limit), which adds value beyond the schema. However, it omits several other parameters (lookback, performanceWindows, minHistogramForForming, view description is already in schema, etc.). The description does not fully compensate for the uncovered parameters, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'MACD cross detection' with explicit cross types (golden/dead) and two operation modes (screening vs. single-pair deep dive). It is clear about the tool's core function, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling analysis tools like analyze_indicators or detect_patterns, so it falls slightly short of full differentiation.

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 context on when to use the screening mode (pair omitted) vs. deep-dive mode (pair specified), including forming detection and past statistics. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool, nor does it point to alternatives such as other detect_* or analyze_* tools. Usage guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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