multi_agent_analysis

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context by explaining the debate process and the return value (a structured debate with a final trading decision). It does not mention side effects or rate limits, but for a read-only analysis tool, this is sufficient and does not contradict annotations.

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 with a clear purpose sentence, an Args block, and a Returns line. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and front-loads the main action.

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's complexity (multiple exchanges, timeframes, agent types) and the lack of an output schema, the description provides sufficient detail on inputs and outputs. It explains what the user gets back and gives enough examples to understand the parameters. The description is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool appropriately.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates. The Args section provides concrete examples for symbol ('BTCUSDT', 'COMI', 'THYAO', etc.), lists valid exchange values, and specifies allowed timeframes. This goes well beyond the bare schema type definitions, giving the agent sufficient semantic detail to invoke the tool correctly.

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 ('Run'), a concrete resource ('a multi-agent debate'), and the exact agent types (Technical, Sentiment, Risk) for a given symbol. It is distinct from sibling tools that focus on single indicators or market scans, so it clearly differentiates its function.

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 when to use it: when a comprehensive multi-agent debate on a symbol is desired. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear and the tool's purpose is sufficiently unique among siblings. It lacks a 'when not to use' note, which prevents a perfect score.

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