Scan Symbol Patterns & AI Confluence

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully conveys the output shape (patterns, confluence scores, trade setups with entry/SL/TP levels), which is behavioral context beyond the annotations, but it omits the data source, lookback clamping behavior, and any latency or rate-limit characteristics.

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 that leads with the action and resource, then the computed outputs; there is no filler or repetition. The parenthetical enumerations make it slightly dense but every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is unnecessary, and annotations cover the read-only/open-world profile. The description is sufficient for an agent to select and call the tool, with only minor gaps around when this scan should be preferred over the watchlist or backtest siblings.

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 100% – every parameter (period, timeframe, compact, max_patterns, lookback_bars, min_confidence, include_brief) already carries its own description and defaults in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 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?

The description names a specific verb ('Scan') and resource ('a market symbol'), and enumerates exactly what is produced: candlestick patterns, AI Confluence Scores (Trend + RSI + Volume + ATR), and trade setups with Entry/SL/TP1/TP2. It is unambiguous what the tool does, but it never contrasts itself with the sibling ta_scan_watchlist, so sibling differentiation is only implied by the singular 'a market symbol'.

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?

Usage is implied: the asset-class list ('Stocks, Crypto, Forex, Indices, Commodities') and example tickers tell the agent what inputs are in scope, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance nor when to prefer ta_scan_watchlist or ta_backtest_patterns instead. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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