consecutive_candles_scan

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which matches the description's 'Scan' action. However, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as return format or pagination behavior. It is consistent and safe, but does not enrich the annotation-provided 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 and front-loaded with the core scanning purpose, followed by a clearly formatted Args block. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy or fluff, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 description covers the tool's purpose and parameter semantics well, and annotations provide safety context. Since there is no output schema, the description could better explain the exact return structure, but 'Scan for coins' and 'limit' implying a list of matching coins is sufficient for a straightforward read-only scanner. Overall, it is fairly complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by providing meaningful Arg descriptions for all 6 parameters. It explains pattern_type values ('bullish'/'bearish'), gives a range for candle_count (2-5), defines min_growth as percentage, and clarifies timeframe and exchange names. This adds significant value beyond the empty schema descriptions.

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 'Scan for coins with consecutive growing/shrinking candles pattern' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating this tool scans for coins based on a specific candle pattern. This distinguishes it from siblings like volume breakout scanners or advanced candle pattern tools, which focus on different detection logic.

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 implies usage for scanning consecutive candle patterns but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools is provided, leaving the usage context implied by the tool name and description.

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