detect_patterns

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that display times are formatted in tz (default Asia/Tokyo) while structured data remains UTC ISO for backward compatibility, and it sets an explicit rule to render results visually and avoid direct SVG output. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only, rate limits, or other side effects. It provides some useful behavior but not a complete safety profile.

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 well-structured: it opens with the tool's purpose and pattern list, then the forming/completed unification, tz note, visual rendering rules, and data format. It is concise and front-loaded, with each sentence contributing. No significant fluff or redundancy.

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?

For a tool with 14 parameters, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is not sufficiently complete. It mentions the overlays for rendering but does not explain the full response structure, how parameters affect detection, or the meaning of pattern types in detail. An agent would struggle to correctly choose detection parameters without further information. The description leaves critical gaps.

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 only 43%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It explains the tz parameter's effect on display formatting and the UTC preservation of structured data, but does not clarify key detection parameters like swingDepth, tolerancePct, minBarsBetweenSwings, or the interplay between includeForming/includeCompleted. The patterns parameter has guidelines in the schema, but the description adds little beyond the schema. It fails to help with most parameters.

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 identifies the tool as chart pattern detection, listing specific pattern types (double top, head and shoulders, triangle, wedge, flag). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on chart patterns rather than candlestick patterns (analyze_candle_patterns) or other analysis. The verb 'detect' and resource 'chart patterns' are explicit and specific.

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 some usage context: it detects both forming and completed patterns, and instructs passing overlays to render_chart_svg for visual confirmation. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions (e.g., 'for candlestick patterns use analyze_candle_patterns'). The guidance is implicit but not comprehensive.

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