bollinger_scan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool's function (scanning for low BBW) but does not mention side effects, permissions, rate limits, or whether it modifies data. The 'squeeze detection' label adds some context, but overall transparency is limited.

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: a short paragraph followed by a structured list of arguments. Every sentence adds value, and the purpose is front-loaded. No superfluous content.

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 (4 optional params, no required params, scan output), the description covers what the tool does, the assets it works with, and all parameters' meanings. An output schema exists but is not described, which is acceptable. The description is complete for an agent to correctly invoke the 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 description coverage is 0%, yet the description provides detailed semantics: it lists exchange with specific exchanges for crypto and stocks, timeframe with example values, bbw_threshold with default, and limit with max. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's types and defaults.

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 the tool scans for assets with low Bollinger Band Width (squeeze detection) and specifies it works with both crypto and stocks. This provides a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like volume_breakout_scanner or market_snapshot.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for squeeze detection but lacks guidance on exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools. Adequate for basic understanding but missing explicit usage context.

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