egx_trade_plan

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It details the outputs thoroughly and implies a read-only analysis, but it never explicitly states that it is non-mutating or how it handles data freshness/real-time feeds. This is adequate but not fully transparent about side-effect boundaries.

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-organized with an intro, a Produces list, an Args section, and a Returns section. Every sentence adds value, though the Returns section partially repeats the Produces list, making it slightly less concise than ideal.

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 no output schema, the description thoroughly covers what the tool returns (score breakdown, entry points, S/R levels, etc.). It also explains parameter values. It lacks details on error conditions or prerequisites (e.g., whether the symbol must be active), but for selection and invocation purposes it is nearly 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so admirably by listing examples for symbol (COMI, TMGH, FWRY) and enumerating all allowed timeframes for the timeframe parameter. This goes beyond the schema's bare 'string' type 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 clearly states a specific action ('Generate a full trade plan') for a specific resource ('a specific EGX stock'). It enumerates the outputs (score, entry points, stop-loss, targets, etc.) which distinguishes it from siblings like egx_market_overview or egx_stock_screener that serve different purposes.

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 context is clear: use when a trade plan is needed for a specific EGX stock. It implicitly excludes use for market overviews or scanning multiple stocks. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when-not-to-use, so it falls 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.