Idx Analyze Chart Pattern

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the tool generates an annotated chart image and scans for specific pattern types, which is useful. However, it does not mention data-source assumptions, failure modes, or any constraints beyond what the schema already provides, so the behavioral picture remains incomplete.

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 single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose and output in a compact way. Every part carries information: the analytical approach, the pattern types, and the deliverable. No filler or redundant wording is present.

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?

For a relatively simple analysis tool with full parameter documentation and an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. It clearly states the outcome and the pattern categories. Still, the lack of any usage guidance and minor behavioral caveats keep it just short of fully 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 100%, so the schema already documents ticker, period, and timeframe with defaults and example values. The description adds context about pattern types and the generated image, but it does not meaningfully enrich parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific action (algorithmically analyze chart patterns), the resource type (triangles, channels, support/resistance), and the concrete delivery format (annotated candlestick chart image). This clearly differentiates the tool from its siblings, which focus on quotes, financials, order books, and other market data.

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 states what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios where this tool is appropriate or not, and no explicit exclusions or preferred sibling tools for related tasks.

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