advanced_candle_pattern

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It describes the analysis behavior and return value, implying a non-destructive scan. However, it does not explicitly state read-only semantics, data freshness, rate limits, or error behavior. It provides basic transparency but leaves out significant behavioral 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 well-structured with separate Args and Returns sections. It is concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence contributes meaningful information. No unnecessary verbosity or redundancy.

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 is reasonably complete for a basic scan tool, but there are notable gaps. It lacks return format details (only says 'Coins with progressive candle size increase patterns'), no guidance on result interpretation, and no differentiation from similar siblings. The parameter explanations are good, but the overall operational context is incomplete for an agent.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description's Args section is crucial. It explains all five parameters concisely (e.g., 'pattern_length: Number of consecutive periods to analyze (2-4)') with meaningful details like allowed ranges. This adds value beyond the raw schema, even if some like min_size_increase could be more precise about percentages.

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 it performs 'Advanced candle pattern analysis using multi-timeframe data' and specifies the output: 'Coins with progressive candle size increase patterns'. This identifies a specific functionality, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like consecutive_candles_scan or volume_breakout_scanner.

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 any use cases, exclusions, or alternatives such as consecutive_candles_scan. The only hint is the tool name and parameter names, which is insufficient for an agent to make a selection decision.

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