List Supported Candlestick Patterns

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the response also reports TA-Lib binary status and Python No-GIL runtime status, which is useful context about diagnostic content, but nothing about auth, limits, or failure modes — and with an output schema present, some of this may already be documented.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause (patterns, TA-Lib status, No-GIL status) contributes distinct information about what the call returns.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything needed to select and invoke it. Return-value details are delegated to the output schema, which exists.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema has no properties, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a parameterless tool applies.

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?

States a specific verb ("List") and resource ("candlestick patterns") and is clearly distinguishable from siblings like ta_scan_symbol, ta_scan_watchlist and ta_backtest_patterns, which perform operations rather than enumerate. It does not name an alternative, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 enumeration intent implies its use as a discovery step before scanning or backtesting, but the description never states when to call it versus the scan/backtest siblings, nor any prerequisites. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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