multi_timeframe_analysis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the operational behavior: 'Runs the composite rating on weekly through hourly candles' and indicates it only checks alignment, implying no side effects. While it lacks rate limits or exact output details, it clearly signals a read-only analysis tool.

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 compact and well-organized: a one-line purpose, a concise Args list, and two sentences of interpretive guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For an analysis tool with no annotations and an existing output schema (which likely covers return values), the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and interpretation. It could specify the exact timeframe list or mention alternatives, but overall it is quite complete.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It does so effectively: symbol is 'Ticker', market specifies allowed values "crypto", "stock" or "idx", and bars means 'Candles per timeframe'. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema types and defaults, though 'Ticker' is somewhat tautological.

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's purpose: 'Check whether timeframes agree on direction.' It further distinguishes itself from sibling analysis tools by specifying it runs a composite rating across weekly through hourly candles, making its scope and function unambiguous.

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 clear usage context: 'Aligned timeframes are the setups worth acting on; conflict between them is the usual reason a signal on one chart fails.' This implies when to use the tool (for multi-timeframe confirmation), but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, stopping short of a 5.

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