support_resistance

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

Without annotations, the description discloses basic behavior: computing pivot points and key price levels from historical data. It does not reveal data source, accuracy, or edge cases, but the core action is transparent.

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 structured with a brief purpose, Args, and Examples sections. It is concise but the '[PRO]' tag is unexplained. Every sentence adds value, though the examples could be more informative.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers inputs adequately with examples. However, it lacks details on the output format or how results are structured, making it somewhat incomplete for a complex analytical tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: symbol with ticker examples and period with explicit options (3mo,6mo,1y,2y) and default. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's type and default.

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 it computes support and resistance levels, specifically naming pivot points R1-R3 and S1-S3. This verb+resource pair is distinct and well-defined, differentiating it from sibling tools like technical_indicators.

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 provides examples of usage (stock tickers and periods), implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with alternatives like technical_indicators or stock_historical, leaving room for ambiguity.

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