consecutive_candles_scan

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only scan but does not explicitly state this, nor does it mention data source, freshness, pagination, rate limits, or error behaviors. The description is a simple docstring with args/returns, leaving significant behavioral context undisclosed.

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 and well-structured with an opening purpose sentence followed by formatted Arguments and Returns sections. Every parameter has a one-line explanation with no redundant text, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description states that the return is a 'List of coins' and explains all input parameters. It does not elaborate on the structure of each coin in the list (e.g., growth percentages, symbols), which would improve completeness, but overall it covers the essential aspects for a scanning tool with six parameters.

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 providing clear meanings for all six parameters: exchange, timeframe, pattern_type, candle_count, min_growth, and limit. It even specifies valid values (e.g., 'bullish'/'bearish', 2-5) beyond the schema's default-only definitions.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Scan for coins with consecutive growing/shrinking candles pattern.' This clearly distinguishes it from general scanners, though it does not explicitly name alternatives like 'advanced_candle_pattern' or other sibling tools. The pattern_type parameter clarifies bullish/bearish, making the purpose concrete.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or specific scenarios (e.g., 'use this when you need to identify consecutive candle streaks'). The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.

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