combined_analysis

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds context beyond that: it is a 'POWER TOOL' that combines three data sources, and it notes that coin_analysis is 'faster' for indicators only, implying this tool may be slower or heavier. It does not disclose output format or potential rate limits, but given the strong annotation coverage, this is sufficient.

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-organized with a clear purpose statement, usage guidance, example, and Args section. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary fluff, though the 'POWER TOOL:' prefix is slightly informal but still serves to emphasize the tool's composite nature.

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 complex tool combining TA, sentiment, and news, the description explains what it does and its parameters, but it does not describe the return value or output structure. With no output schema, this is a notable gap. It also omits any mention of supported symbol types beyond the exchange list, which is partially inferred.

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 descriptions are absent (0% coverage), but the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: symbol must be a 'bare ticker, no exchange prefix', exchange lists valid values, and timeframe lists valid intervals. The example call also clarifies usage, which is especially valuable for the symbol parameter.

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 function: 'TradingView technical analysis + news sentiment + financial news.' It explicitly says 'Use this when you want TA AND sentiment AND news for one symbol in a single call,' and distinguishes from siblings by naming coin_analysis for indicators-only and multi_timeframe_analysis for cross-timeframe alignment.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this when...' and names alternatives with specific conditions. It also gives an example call and lists accepted exchanges and timeframes, making it very clear when to choose this tool over others.

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