multi_agent_analysis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It does disclose the output ('A structured debate between 3 AI agents culminating in a final trading decision'), which is helpful. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it makes external calls, or any latency/cost implications. This is typical for analysis tools but still a gap without annotations.

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 a compact docstring with 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every line provides useful information, no fluff. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then details parameters.

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 arguments, no output schema), the description sufficiently explains inputs and the high-level return value. It could mention more about the structure of the debate or the final decision format, but the provided information is adequate for an agent to understand what to expect and when to use it.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter with specific examples: symbol includes 'BTCUSDT' and 'COMI', exchange lists KUCOIN/BINANCE and stock exchanges, timeframe lists intervals like '15m'. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema and helps the agent construct valid arguments.

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 the tool's function: 'Run a multi-agent debate (Technical, Sentiment, Risk) for a specific symbol.' This is a specific verb with a distinct resource (multi-agent debate) and scope (symbol). It differentiates from sibling analysis tools by naming the three agent perspectives.

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 practical examples of accepted symbol and exchange values, implying when to use the tool (e.g., for a known symbol). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as saying 'use combined_analysis for a single-perspective view'.

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