detect_support_resistance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the method ('clustered swing pivots') but does not disclose output format, data requirements, or side effects. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 very concise (one sentence), but this brevity sacrifices necessary detail. It lacks structure; a more informative opening sentence could combine purpose and context.

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, no annotations, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is critically incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how parameters affect output, or any usage constraints. The agent cannot reliably use this tool.

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 has 0% description coverage. The description does not clarify the meaning or acceptable values of 'symbol' or 'timeframe' beyond what the schema provides. No default values or constraints are explained.

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 'Support/resistance levels from clustered swing pivots' clearly identifies the tool's purpose: detecting support and resistance levels using a specific method. It is distinct from siblings like 'detect_trend' or 'calculate_rsi'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for technical analysis but lacks explicit conditions or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision context.

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