egx_fibonacci_retracement

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral transparency burden, but it only lists parameters. It does not disclose any side effects, dependencies, or computational details, leaving agents without essential context.

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 with a clear purpose statement followed by a structured parameter list. It wastes no words, but the format is human-readable rather than optimized for quick agent parsing.

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?

The description lacks any mention of output format or return values, which is critical given no output schema. It also omits broader context about Fibonacci retracement levels or interpretation, making it incomplete for effective use.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description documents all three parameters (symbol, lookback, timeframe) with examples and default values. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema, though it could elaborate on how these values affect the calculation.

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 explicitly states 'Fibonacci retracement analysis for EGX stocks', clearly identifying the tool's purpose and resource. While it differentiates from siblings like 'egx_index_analysis' through its specific name, no explicit comparison is made.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other EGX analysis tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or appropriate use cases.

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