evaluate_swing_trade_setup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or requires any permissions. It only describes what it does, not behavioral traits.

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 sentence that is concise and to the point, with no superfluous words. It front-loads the key qualifier 'Daily-timeframe.' However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 and sparse description, the tool's return value and complete behavior are not explained. The description is too brief for a tool that performs analysis and likely returns structured results.

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%, and the description does not add any meaning to the single 'symbol' parameter beyond its existence. It does not specify format, example, or constraints.

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 states it is for daily-timeframe swing/delivery setups with support/resistance and a mechanical plan, which clearly indicates the tool's purpose and differentiates it from similar tools like evaluate_intraday_trade_setup. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'evaluates' but the name covers that.

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 implies usage for daily swing trading via the phrase 'Daily-timeframe swing/delivery setup,' but it does not explicitly state when to use, when not to use, or provide alternatives. It is minimally adequate.

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