multi_timeframe_analysis

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It details the analysis process and return value but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, data sources, or limitations. Some transparency is present, but gaps remain.

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 compact, front-loaded, and well-organized into summary, args, and returns. Every sentence contributes value without unnecessary detail, earning a top score.

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 complexity and absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the input parameters, analytical scope, and return type. It does not elaborate on the alignment score calculation, but that is an implementation detail. Slightly more detail on output structure would make it 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description's Args section is crucial. It explains symbol and exchange with concrete examples for both crypto and stock markets, enriching the bare schema and enabling correct parameter usage.

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 identifies the tool as 'Multi-timeframe alignment analysis' and explains it 'Analyzes a symbol across all key timeframes to find confluence and optimal entry timing.' This specific verb and resource distinguish it from sibling tools by focusing on timeframe alignment.

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 for when to use the tool: 'Best trades happen when Weekly, Daily, and lower timeframes all align in the same direction.' This implies the primary use case but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, so it is slightly below a perfect score.

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