multi_agent_analysis

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

The description discloses the core behavior: a structured debate among three AI agents culminating in a trading decision. With no annotations provided, this is adequate but lacks details on data sources (real-time vs historical) or rate limits.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, and uses a clear Args/Returns structure. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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 complexity of a multi-agent debate tool, the description covers inputs well with examples but omits details about the debate structure or output format. However, it states the outcome (final trading decision), which is sufficient for basic usage.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the bare input schema by providing concrete examples for each parameter (e.g., symbol 'BTCUSDT', exchange 'KUCOIN', timeframe '15m') and clarifying acceptable values across asset classes. This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions and enums.

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 action ('Run a multi-agent debate'), the resource ('Technical, Sentiment, Risk'), and the scope ('for a specific symbol'). It distinguishes itself from sibling technical indicator tools by focusing on a debate of agents.

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 implies this tool is for multi-perspective analysis but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like combined_analysis or coin_analysis. No exclusions or when-not guidance is provided.

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