egx_fibonacci_retracement

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains what the tool calculates (retracement/extension levels, trend direction, price position) and what it returns. It does not mention limitations or data source, but for a read-only analysis tool, the core behavior is well covered.

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 clear opening sentence, a detailed Args section, and a Returns summary. Every sentence provides useful information with no fluff or redundancy. The front-loaded purpose makes it easy to understand quickly.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It explains the analysis approach, parameters, and return values in broad terms. While the return format is not deeply specified, the description gives enough context for an agent to understand what to expect.

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's Args section is essential. It provides meaningful explanations for all three parameters, including example values (e.g., 'COMI'), valid enumeration for lookback and timeframe, and defaults. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 ('analysis') and identifies the resource ('EGX stocks') with clear scope: identifying support/resistance at standard Fibonacci ratios. It also lists the specific ratios and zones, making it distinct from sibling tools like egx_sector_scan or bollinger_scan.

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 usage is implied: it performs Fibonacci retracement analysis, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like egx_stock_screener or multi_timeframe_analysis. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, so it only implicitly conveys its purpose.

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