consecutive_candles_scan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention authorization needs, rate limits, side effects, or return format. The description essentially lists parameters without explaining behaviors beyond parameter semantics.

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, starting with a clear one-line purpose followed by a parameter list. It avoids unnecessary words, but the parameter list is somewhat dense without formatting. Still, it is efficient and front-loaded.

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 has 6 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the purpose and parameter semantics adequately. However, it lacks details on return value format, error handling, and edge cases, which are important for a scanning tool. This is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, leaving parameter meanings entirely to the description. The description provides clear, human-readable explanations for all 6 parameters, including acceptable values (e.g., 'bullish' vs 'bearish', timeframes). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 coins with consecutive growing/shrinking candles pattern, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'advanced_candle_pattern' and 'bollinger_scan' by focusing on consecutive candles. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from all siblings, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or context for use. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and description alone.

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