detect_patterns

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions that structural data (data.patterns range) remains in UTC ISO strings for backward compatibility and that display datetime is formatted per timezone. It does not disclose any side effects, rate limits, or destructive behavior, leaving gaps in transparency.

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-loading the purpose and key usage instructions. It avoids extraneous details, though some phrasing (e.g., '形成中+完成済みを統合検出') is repeated. Overall, it efficiently conveys essential information.

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 has 14 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should offer more comprehensive guidance. It introduces overlays for visualization and mentions data.patterns but does not fully explain the output structure or parameter interactions. It is adequate for basic use but lacks depth.

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 only 36%, so the description must compensate. It adds recommended parameter settings for patterns (e.g., double_top default swingDepth=7, tolerancePct=0.04) and explains aliases like 'flag' mapping to double flags. This provides meaningful guidance 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 detects chart patterns such as double top, head and shoulders, triangle, wedge, and flag, and indicates it detects both forming and completed patterns. This distinguishes it from sibling analysis tools that focus on indicators, support/resistance, or candle patterns.

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 specific guidance on how to use the output: pass overlays to render_chart_svg for visualization, and explicitly prohibits direct SVG output in chat. It also mentions timezone formatting. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when this tool should be preferred over others.

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