bollinger_scan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the scanning behavior (low BBW filter), valid exchanges and timeframes, the meaning of bbw_threshold, and the limit constraint (max 100). It does not mention output format or pagination, but the operation is clearly a read-only scan and these gaps are partially covered by the output schema.

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 a brief summary followed by a labeled args list. It is slightly verbose due to listing all exchange values, but every sentence adds necessary information and nothing is extraneous.

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's moderate complexity (4 optional params, no required fields) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains all parameters and the core scan logic, making it sufficient for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 fully compensates by explaining every parameter: exchange lists valid values, timeframe lists options, bbw_threshold states its filtering meaning, and limit defines its purpose. This is exceptionally clear and exceeds the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Scan for assets with low Bollinger Band Width (squeeze detection).' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like volume_breakout_scanner or market_snapshot, and explicitly mentions supported asset types (crypto and stocks).

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 context on when to use the tool: to detect Bollinger Band squeezes. It also specifies supported exchanges and timeframes, giving users concrete usage boundaries. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, stopping short of a full when/when-not guideline.

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